on 


SIDE 

.  h!i!i!ii!iiiiiiiiiiiiinirii|iij      I' 

SHAKESrtkRE 


EDWIN 


„„^iiP^ 


SIDELIGHTS  ON  SHAKESPEARE 


SIDELIGHTS 


ON 


SHAKESPEARE 

BY 

Edwin    Gordon    Lawrence 


DIRECTOR   OF 

THE  LAWRENCE  SCHOOL  OP  ORATORY  OF  NEW 

YORK,  AND  AUTHOR  OF  "HOW  TO  SPEAK " 

"how  to  master  THE  SPOKEN  WORD" 

"how  to  improve  THE  MEMORY" 

ETC.,  ETC. 


BOSTON 

The  Stratford  Company,  Publishers 
1918 


Copyright    1918 

The  STRATFORD  CO.,   Publishers 

Boston,   Mass. 


The  Alpine  Press,  Boston.  Mass.,  U.  S.  A. 


To 
'Tjhe  Immortal  Spirit  of  William  Shakespeare 

A  POOR  PLAYER  WHO  STRUTTED  AND  FRETTED   HIS   HOUR 

UPON   THE  STAGE  OF   LIFE,  AND   THEN  WAS   SEEN 

NO    MORE,    BUT    WHO    LIVES    TODAY    AS    THE 

DRAMATIST     IN     A     MORE     REAL     SENSE 

THAN     WHEN,     IN     THE     GUISE     OF 

MAN,  HE  WALKED  THE  EARTH 

*^his  Book  's  Tiedicated 


i 


UMV 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 

I.     Shakespeare's     Knowledge     and     Por- 
trayal of  Human  Nature  . 

II.     Types  of  Shakespeare's  Characters 

III.  Classes  of  Shakespeare's  Plays 

IV.  Shakespeare's  Revelation  of  Himself  in 

His  Characters  .... 

V.  The  Bible  in  Shakespeare 

VI.  Oratory  in  Shakespeare 

VII.  How  to  Study  Shakespeare   . 

VIII.  The  Disputed  Plays       . 

IX.     The  Authorship  of  the  Works  Known 
as  Shakespeare's 

X.     The  Genius  of  Shakespeare   . 


PAGE 
1 

12 
49 

79 

92 

132 

137 

159 

166 
200 


CHAPTER  I 

Shakespeare's  Knowledge  and  Por- 
trayal of  Human  Nature 

As  WITH  a  wave  of  a  wand,  Shakespeare  mys- 
teriously called  into  being  men  and  women  of 
all  lands,  all  climes,  all  temperaments,  and  all  ages. 
He  could  not  have  known  the  originals  of  all  the 
types  that  he  produced.  How  then  did  he  accom- 
plish his  task?  Through  an  understanding  of  the 
nature  of  man.  He  knew  that  the  emotions  of  men 
are  similar  the  world  over  and  that  only  in  the 
expression  of  these  emotions  do  men  differ.  It  is 
this  difference  in  the  mode  of  expressing  the  feelings 
that  move  the  heart  and  mind  of  humanity  that  pro- 
duces the  different  types  of  men  and  women. 

Different  persons  see  the  same  things  in  different 
lights  and  express  their  emotions  concerning  them 
in  different  ways.  It  is  this  difference  in  perception 
and  action  that  indicates  the  difference  in  charac- 
ters. Perceiving  this  in  human  nature,  Shakespeare 
drew  the  characters  of  Macbeth  and  Richard  III. 
He  represents  both  men  as  actuated  by  ambition, 
and  yet  so  dissimilar  are  these  characters  in  speech, 
action,  and  mode  of  procedure  while  in  pursuit  of 
their  object  as  to  appear  to  be  impelled  by  different 
motives.  They  are  both  murderers,  both  usurpers, 
both  actuated  by  the  same  motives,  and  both  work 

[1] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

according  to  the  same  principles  but  along  lines 
peculiar  to  the  characteristics  of  each  individual. 

The  peculiar  characteristic  possessed  by  Macbeth 
that  colored  his  ambition  was  the  philosophical 
trend  of  his  mind,  therefore  was  he  continually  de- 
bating with  himself  on  the  wisdom  and  the  conse- 
quences of  his  acts.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ambi- 
tion of  Richard  III.  was  directed  by  his  belief  in  the 
superiority  of  the  intellect  over  all  other  powers,  but 
his  intellect  was  so  saturated  with  cruelty  that  it 
prompted  him  to  perform  deeds  that  brought  about 
his  ruin.  It  was  the  misdirection  of  Richard's 
mental  powers,  and  not  his  possession  of  them,  that 
made  him  a  murderer  and  a  villain.  These  side- 
lights are  necessary  to  a  clear  perception  of  character. 

Thus  Shakespeare  depicts  two  beings  of  different 
temperaments  who  are  representative  types  of  char- 
acters governed  by  the  same  emotions  but  differing 
in  the  expression  of  them.  This  reveals  what  con- 
stitutes the  difference  in  Shakespeare's  characters, 
and  partly  accounts  for  his  marvelous  portrayal  of 
them. 

The  grasping  of  this  great  truth  that  there  is  an 
underlying  principle  in  human  nature  that  governs 
the  emotions  and  their  expressions,  enabled  Shake- 
speare to  produce  two  types  of  the  wicked  woman — 
Lady  Macbeth  and  Goneril.  One,  intellectually 
immoral ;  the  other,  physically  depraved. 

Lady  Macbeth 's  wickedness  was  tinged  with 
determination.  She  would  go  on  in  any  course,  no 
matter  what  the  penalty,  provided  she  had  made 

[2] 


PORTRAYAL    OF    HUMAN    NATURE 

up  her  mind  to  do  so.  Determination  was  the  main 
characteristic  that  colored  the  trait  in  the  type  of 
wicked  woman  represented  by  Lady  Macbeth.  Self- 
ishness entered  so  largely  into  the  making  of 
Goneril  that  it  produced  in  her  a  kind  of  wickedness 
different  from  that  typified  by  Lady  Macbeth.  In 
order  to  gain  a  share  in  the  kingdom,  she  lied  to 
her  father;  to  satisfy  her  passion,  she  was  false  to 
her  husband;  to  possess  the  man  of  her  choice,  she 
murdered  her  sister;  and  when  she  found  that  her 
plans  had  miscarried,  she  took  her  own  life.  Both 
of  these  characters  are  women,  both  wicked,  but 
because  of  the  peculiar  characteristics  possessed  by 
each  they  are  different  types  of  women  who  show 
their  wickedness  in  different  waj^s. 

So  also  with  two  pure  women  of  his  creation — 
Desdemona  and  Cordelia.  He  lays  hold  of  the  basic 
trait  that  is  the  foundation  to  the  characters  of 
both  these  women  and  then  develops  those  charac- 
ters along  different  lines.  Desdemona  was  of  that 
type  of  women  who  will  gladly  lie  in  order  to  shield 
a  loved  one — lie,  as  it  were,  in  the  performance  of  a 
duty.  Shakespeare  understood  that  such  women 
exist,  therefore  he  made  Desdemona  a  character 
true  to  nature  when  he  caused  her  to  lie  in  an 
endeavor  to  prevent  the  discovery  of  Othello's 
crime.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  women  who  will 
not  tell  a  lie  even  though  the  heavens  fall.  Shake- 
speare knew  there  were  such  women  in  the  world, 
consequently  when  he  gave  that  trait  to  Cordelia  he 
produced  a  different  woman  to  Desdemona,  but  one 

[3] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

just  as  natural.  Thus  Shakespeare  depicts  the 
difference  between  the  conception  of  right  and 
wrong  of  these  two  noble  women.  The  same  princi- 
ple actuates  both — the  desire  to  do  right,  and  the 
moral  courage  to  do  that  right  as  they  understand 
it,  irrespective  of  the  consequences.  This  same 
principle  is  apparent  in  both  and  is  the  governing 
force  in  both,  the  trait  in  each  character  showing  the 
standpoint  from  which  each  viewed  her  duty.  The 
main  trait  in  Desdemona's  character  is  obedience  to 
her  husband;  that  of  Cordelia's  obedience  to  truth. 
The  knowledge  that  it  was  a  difference  in  view- 
point that  produced  the  different  types  in  human 
nature  enabled  Shakespeare  to  depict  murders  with- 
out being  a  murderer,  to  characterize  madness  with- 
out being  mad,  to  draw  women  to  perfection  without 
being  a  woman,  to  create  representative  kings,  peas- 
ants, philosophers  and  fools  without  being,  in  turn, 
a  king,  a  peasant,  a  philosopher,  or  a  fool.  Instead 
of  possessing  all  the  traits  that  go  to  the  making  of 
these  diverse  types  of  humanity  (the  murderer,  the 
madman,  the  woman),  instead  of  being  a  complex 
character  such  as  Nature  never  created,  Shakespeare 
was  merely  the  dramatist  who  saw  the  principles 
that  govern  human  nature  and  applied  them  when 
creating  the  children  of  his  brain.  Through  his 
ability  to  see  and  apply  Nature's  laws  he  was  able 
to  produce  counterfeits  that  resemble  closely  the 
men  and  women  of  reality,  and  it  is  because  he  so 
saw  and  applied  these  laws  that  his  productions  have 

[4] 


PORTRAYAL    OF    HUMAN   NATURE 

lived  for  over  three  hundred  years  and  bid  fair 
to  exist  until  the  end  of  time. 

In  life  there  is  a  predominating  trait  in  all  human 
beings,  the  exercise  of  which  forms  their  characters 
and  directs  the  current  of  their  lives.  Selfishness  is 
the  governing  power  in  some;  lust  of  power  in 
others;  desire  for  worldly  wealth,  love,  fear,  cour- 
age, virtue,  sensuality,  religion,  in  still  others;  but 
in  every  human  being  there  is  some  one  predomi- 
nating and  peculiar  trait  that  singles  out  one  person 
from  another  and  gives  each  his  individuality. 

A  strong  proof  that  Shakespeare  was  aware  of 
this  principle  in  human  nature,  and  knowingly  ap- 
plied it  to  his  creatures  of  the  stage,  is  discernible 
in  his  emphasizing  the  fact  that  the  failure  of  King 
Henry  VI.  as  a  monarch  was  due  to  the  fact  that  he 
was  over  conscientious  regarding  his  behavior  to- 
ward others  but  very  lax  in  demanding  and  exacting 
conscientious  treatment  from  them.  He  believed 
himself  bound  by  his  oath,  but  lost  sight  of  the  fact 
that  his  enemies  were  morally  equally  bound  by 
their  oaths.  He  held  himself  to  a  strict  account,  but 
he  made  excuses  for  others.  This  is  why  he  was 
a  weak  king,  and  this  is  why  he  lost  his  crown  to 
Richard  Plantagenet,  Duke  of  York.  Shakespeare 
realized  that  any  trait  or  characteristic  carried  to 
an  extreme  is  the  means  of  unbalancing  a  character, 
consequently  he  used  the  goodness  of  Henry  VI. 
for  his  undoing,  and  the  wickedness  of  Richard  III. 
for  his.  This  was  merely  carrying  out  the  principle 
that  pervades  all  nature  both  material  and  human. 

[5] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

If  there  is  a  superabundance  of  any  mineral  in  a 
given  piece  of  earth,  that  portion  of  the  earth  will 
be  incapable  of  bringing  forth  certain  fruits ;  if  any 
trait  is  unduly  developed  in  man,  it  unbalances  him 
and  makes  him  unable  to  control  himself  properly  or 
to  do  his  best  work.  It  matters  not  whether  the 
trait  is  good  or  bad,  it  will  be  productive  of  evil  if 
it  is  composed  of  unequal  proportions.  Shakespeare 
himself  says : 

0 !  mickle  is  the  powerful  grace  that  lies 
In  herbs,  plants,  stones,  and  their  true  qualities: 
For  naught  so  vile  that  on  the  earth  doth  live 
But  to  the  earth  some  special  good  doth  give; 
Nor  aught  so  good,  but,  strain'd  from  that  fair  use, 
Revolts  from  true  birth,  stumbling  on  abuse : 
Virtue  itself  turns  vice,  being  misapplied; 
And  vice  sometimes  by  action  dignified. '^ 

Thus  virtue,  in  the  person  of  Henry  VI.,  being  mis- 
applied, turns  vice;  whereas  vice,  represented  by  the 
lie  told  by  Desdemona  to  shield  her  husband,  becomes, 
because  of  the  virtuous  intent,  dignified.  In  like  man- 
ner, the  goodness  of  Henry  VI.,  carried  to  unreason- 
able ends,  was  productive  of  evil ;  the  intellectual 
strength  of  Richard  III.  and  lago,  applied  to  evil 
purposes,  turned  these  strong  men  into  villains. 
Shakespeare  was  as  immutable  as  Nature,  causing 
all  his  characters  to  bear  the  consequences  of  their 
acts,  and  moving  them  on  the  stage  of  the  theatre 
in  accordance  with  the  same  principles  that  move 
men  and  women  upon  earth. 
This  natural  principle  was  seized  upon  by  Shake- 

1  "Romeo   and    Juliet,"    Act    II.    Scene    III. 

[6] 


PORTRAYAL  OF  HUMAN  NATURE 

speare  and  applied  bj^  him  in  the  delineation  of  all 
his  characters.  Love  of  truth  is  the  dominating  trait 
in  the  character  of  Cordelia ;  determination  or  fixed- 
ness of  purpose  that  of  Lady  Macbeth ;  cruelty  that 
of  Queen  Margaret ;  belief  in  intellectual  superiority 
over  all  other  powers  is  the  main  trait  in  the  char- 
acter of  lago ;  ambition  controls  Macbeth ;  lust  of 
power  governs  Cassius ;  religion  predominates  in 
Henry  VI.,  while  patriotism  animates  Brutus.  Thus 
we  see  that  Shakespeare  placed  in  his  characters 
traits  that  govern  them  in  accordance  with  the  laws 
of  human  nature,  and  as  the  causes  that  control 
them  are  similar  to  the  causes  that  animate  mankind 
they  speak  and  act  like  human  beings. 

Nothing  has  been  said  in  this  chapter  regarding 
Ariel,  Caliban,  and  the  Weird  Sisters,  because  they 
are  not  natural  characters,  and  Shakespeare  could 
not  have  intended  them  to  be.  They  are  imaginary 
creations  that  typify  the  emotions,  passions,  and 
spirits  of  man.  These  embodiments  of  the  fates, 
furies,  and  mysteries  that  are  supposed  to  hover 
over  mankind  are  purely  the  creations  of  Shake- 
speare's mind  for  which  he  is  in  no  way  indebted  to 
Nature.  They  are  wonderful  creations  of  fancy, 
thoroughly  Shakespearean  in  every  way,  but  a  con- 
sideration of  them  is  not  germane  to  the  subject  of 
this  chapter. 

While  the  author  has  stated  that  in  his  opinion 
Shakespeare  was  governed  by  no  fixed  rule,  he  is 
convinced  that  he  was  always  controlled  by  a  princi- 
ple, exactly  in  the  same  manner  that  Nature  is  gov- 

[7] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

erned.  By  principle  is  meant  a  power  that  acts 
inflexibly,  continuously,  and  unif ormally ;  a  cause 
that  is  fundamental  and  necessarily  produces  results 
along  certain  lines;  a  power  that  brushes  aside  all 
rules.  Whereas  the  word  rule  signifies  a  method  of 
procedure  through  customary  channels  that  is  sub- 
ject to  change.  Rules  must  give  way  to  principles; 
they  are  qualified,  principles  are  not.  The  laws  of 
Nature  are  immutable,  but  when  man  works  in 
harmony  with  them  they  never  thwart  or  hinder  him. 
So  with  the  laws  of  Shakespeare.  He  looked  into 
Nature  and  learned  the  secret  of  her  power.  He 
applied  the  selfsame  principles  she  uses,  and  the 
result  was  that  he  produced  creatures  of  his  brain 
so  lifelike,  and  apparently  so  little  circumscribed, 
as  to  make  them  seem  the  work  of  Nature  herself. 

True,  Shakespeare  follows  the  arch-like  develop- 
ment in  the  construction  of  his  plays — that  is,  there 
is  a  gradual  rise  to  the  middle  of  the  play  and  then 
as  gradual  a  fall  to  the  end  in  most  of  his  works. 
This,  however,  cannot  be  called  a  rule  in  the  sense 
that  that  word  is  commonly  used.  It  is,  on  the 
other  hand,  distinctly  a  principle,  as  it  underlies  all 
his  creations.  As  Nature,  in  all  her  works,  is  gov- 
erned by  the  principle  of  growth  and  decay,  so 
Shakespeare,  in  his  dramas,  is  governed  by  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  rise  and  fall  of  development.  He  seized 
on  the  law  of  Nature  and  worked  it  out  in  his  plays. 
He  was  not  fettered  by  rules,  but  was  governed  by 
a  principle  as  fixed  as  that  of  gravitation.  No  rule 
of  dramatic  construction  can  be  cited  that  Shake- 

[8] 


PORTRAYAL    OF    HUMAN   NATURE 

speare  has  not  broken,  but  no  principle  of  Nature  has 
ever  been  violated  by  him.  He  had  no  rules  for  fash- 
ioning his  villains — Richard  III.  is  not  like  lago,  nor 
is  Lady  Macbeth  like  Goneril.  He  had  no  rules  for 
creating  his  kings — Richard  II.  is  not  like  Claudius. 
He  had  no  rules  for  drawing  his  lovers — Romeo  is 
not  like  Benedick.  But  he  did  have  principles,  by 
means  of  which  he  drew  all  his  characters  and  con- 
structed all  his  plays.  And  it  is  because  he  was 
governed  by  principles  and  not  by  rules  that  his 
characters  are  dissimilar  and  yet  all  equally  true, 
his  plays  unlike  one  another  and  yet  each  one  the 
most  perfect  of  its  kind.  No  other  dramatist  has 
ever  produced  a  comedy  to  equal  The  Tempest,  a 
historical  play  to  equal  Henry  V.,  or  a  tragedy  to 
equal  Macbeth.  In  all  these  fields  of  dramatic  litera- 
ture Shakespeare  reigns  supreme,  because  he  created 
by  principle  while  others  manufactured  by  rule. 

"When  it  is  stated  that  Shakespeare  was  controlled 
by  a  governing  principle  in  all  his  work,  it  is  in- 
tended to  mean  that  he  worked  in  accordance  with 
the  laws  of  Nature  and  not  from  any  preconceived 
plan  such  as  the  Aristotelian  rules  of  unity.  There 
is  in  Nature  a  great  principle  known  as  undulation 
which  manifests  itself  in  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the 
tide,  in  hunger  and  satisfaction,  in  inhalation  and 
exhalation.  This  is  the  principle  that  Shakespeare 
seized  upon  and  used  in  the  building  of  his  plays. 
He  did  not  deliberately  set  forth  to  employ  the  arch- 
like mode  of  plot  construction,  he  did  not  measure 
each  play  to  find  the  exact  spot  that  was  to  indi- 

[9] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

cate  the  center  of  the  arch,  but  he  understood  the 
laws  of  Nature,  and  when  he  decided  to  write  a 
play  dealing  with  a  particular  subject,  he  gathered 
his  material,  and  then  proceeded  to  accomplish  his 
object.  Just  as  the  ocean  rises  and  falls  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  principle  of  undulation,  so  do  the  plays 
of  Shakespeare  develop.  Call  this  what  you  will — 
skill,  chance,  genius — it  matters  not  by  what  name 
it  is  known,  it  is  a  force  that  worked  as  unerringly 
as  the  force  of  Nature.  Nowhere  throughout  the 
Plays  is  any  restraint  apparent  such  as  would  surely 
arise  from  the  use  of  rules.  Precisely  as  when  the 
inequality  of  the  English  language  stood  in  the  way 
of  the  expression  of  his  thought  and  he  supplied  the 
deficiency  by  creating  new  words  or  altering  old 
ones,  when  a  strict  compliance  with  the  rules  of 
iambic  poetry  would  harden  and  mechanize  his  lines 
and  the  rule  went  by  the  board  and  not  the  purpose 
of  the  Poet,  so  also  all  rules  had  to  give  way  to  the 
building  and  unfolding  of  the  plot.  This  is  one  of 
the  great  secrets  of  Shakespeare's  power  as  shown 
in  the  construction  of  his  plays,  and  it  accounts  for 
his  ability  to  accomplish  so  much  with  the  little 
material  in  the  way  of  schooling  that  he  possessed. 
Our  own  Lincoln  had  this  same  insight  into  Nature 
and  her  works,  therefore  was  he  able  to  construct 
the  immortal  Gettysburg  address  even  though  he 
had  received  less  than  one  year's  schooling.  It  is 
not  schooling  that  developes  the  mind  of  man,  it 
is  education;  and  the  best  way  to  gain  this  educa- 
tion is  by  a  study  of  Nature  and  of  man.     This 

[10] 


PORTRAYAL    OF    HUMAN   NATURE 

Shakespeare  did,  and  because  he  did  it,  he  is  Shake- 
speare. Very  few  persons  received  an  education 
equal  to  that  of  the  great  Dramatist,  but  thousands 
upon  thousands  spent  more  time  in  artificial  school- 
rooms than  he.  His  place  of  study  was  the  world — 
his  ear  close  to  the  mouth  of  Nature,  his  finger  upon 
the  pulse  of  man.  He  loved  Nature  and  she  spoke  to 
him  in  her  manifold  voices  and  told  him  her  secrets. 
He  was  a  child  of  the  immortal  spirit  of  Nature,  and 
this  same  spirit  passing  into  the  children  of  his  brain 
impregnated  them  with  a  similar  immortality.  In 
no  other  way  can  the  author  account  for  the  being 
who  was  known  upon  earth  as  William  Shakespeare. 


Lii] 


CHAPTER  II 

Types  of  Shakespeare's  Characters 

IT  is  a  mighty  task  to  attempt  to  analyze  and  de- 
scribe the  characters  of  Shakespeare.  They  are 
all  so  human,  all  so  moved  and  controlled  by  the  mani- 
fold emotions  of  mankind,  that  it  is  a  difficult  matter 
to  fathom  their  mysteries  and  peer  into  their  souls 
unless  one  understands  the  workings  of  Nature.  In 
his  earlier  plays  Shakespeare  shows  the  influence  that 
external  nature  had  upon  him,  but  in  his  later  plays 
he  devotes  his  genius  to  creating  types  of  human 
nature.  He  turns  from  the  trees,  the  flowers,  the 
clouds,  the  streams,  and  the  heavenly  planets  to  a 
contemplation  of  the  love,  hate,  remorse,  jealousy, 
ambition,  joy,  and  sorrow  of  the  human  mind  and 
human  heart.  The  marvelous  power  of  Shakespeare 
is  nowhere  more  apparent  than  in  his  lifelike  por- 
trayal of  character.  His  men  and  women,  his  kings 
and  queens,  his  philosophers  and  his  fools  all  wear 
such  a  human  garb  that  it  requires  little  stretch  of 
the  imagination  to  make  one  feel,  while  poring  over 
the  pages  of  the  great  magician,  that  the  characters 
really  live  and  breathe  and  that  one  is  actually  com- 
muning with  them  and  not  with  the  pages  of  a  book. 
It  would  not  be  surprising  if  Shakespeare  created 
merely  great  men  characters,  he  was  himself  a  man 
and  experienced  the  many  emotions  common  to  men, 
but  it  is  almost  incomprehensible  that  he  should  also 

[12] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

have  had  the  power  of  bringing  into  being  the  marvel- 
ously  lifelike  characters  of  his  women. 

He  accomplished  this  through  his  knowledge  of 
Nature's  laws  and  his  almost  godlike  power  of 
imagination — the  power  of  taking  a  speck  of  knowl- 
edge and  turning  it,  by  the  magnifying  quality  ot 
the  poet's  eye,  into  a  world  of  reality.  No  matter 
what  means  he  employed  for  creating  these  beings 
of  fancy,  that  are  as  real  as  actual  material  creatures, 
the  characters  are  here  for  our  enjoyment,  and  our 
gratitude  for  the  gift  need  not  be  less  deep  because 
of  our  inability  to  fathom  fully  the  source  of  their 
being.  As  God  breathed  the  breath  of  life  into  the 
inanimate  clay  and  man  became  thereby  a  living 
soul,  so  also  Shakespeare  placed  the  life  of  his  genius 
into  dead  words  and  they  sprang  into  living  charac- 
ters. He,  of  all  men,  was,  in  reality,  a  creator,  as 
he  brought  into  existence  dramatic  personages  en- 
dowed with  his  own  living  force.  We  will  turn  from 
surmises  regarding  the  causes  that  led  to  the  birth 
of  these  characters  to  gaze  upon  them  as  actualities. 
Let  us  enter  the  charmed  circle  of  comradeship 
through  becoming  personally  acquainted  with  the 
characters  by  studying  their  attributes,  their  motives, 
and  their  actions. 

The  Chaeacter  of  Hamlet 

In  all  English  literature  no  dramatic  character  has 
been  so  much  written  about  as  has  that  of  Hamlet, 
Prince  of  Denmark.  Of  no  other  have  the  opinions 
of  scholars,  editors,  doctors  and  actors  so  differed. 

[13] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

By  some  it  has  been  claimed  that  he  was  insane,  some 
that  the  imaginative  powers  were  overbalanced,  some 
that  he  was  a  coward,  lacked  energy,  and  was  devoid 
of  action.  But  the  contrary  of  all  this  is  indicated 
^3»  by  the  text  if  it  is  read  with  an  unbiased  and  intelli- 
gent mind. 

First,  consider  the  question  of  his  sanity.  There 
is  but  one  place  to  go  for  evidence  on  this  point — the 
play.  Doctors  may  argue  on  the  acts  and  sayings 
of  Hamlet  and  conclude  from  their  study  of  them 
that  a  human  being  responsible  for  them  would  un- 
questionably be  insane,  but  doctors  should  not  take 
all  these  acts  and  sayings  at  their  face  value  unless 
they  are  corroborated  by  other  facts,  especially  when 
it  is  distinctly  stated  in  the  play  that  the  character 
is  acting  a  part.  Many  will  claim  that  the  statement 
of  the  character  in  question  that  he  is  merely  pre- 
tending insanity  is  a  sure  indication  of  his  being  so 
in  realit}'^,  pointing  to  the  fact  that  the  insane  rarely, 
if  ever,  realize  their  mental  state.  But  this  is  only 
the  case  when  attending  circumstances  disprove  the 
contention  of  the  insane  one  by  showing  his  opinion 
to  be  a  delusion. 

The  first  we  see  of  Hamlet  is  in  Act  I.  Scene  II. 
where  he  is  represented  as  coming  upon  the  stage  in 
attendance  on  the  King  and  Queen.  Surely  in  this 
scene  no  indication  of  insanity  appears.  He  replies 
sanely  to  the  request  of  his  mother  to  remain  at 
Elsinore  and  not  go  to  Wittenberg.  On  the  exit  of 
the  other  characters  he  remains  and  gives  expression 
to  his  thoughts  regarding  the  second  marriage  of  his 

[14] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

mother  in  the  words  of  that  pathetic  soliloquy, 
"O,  that  this  too,  too  solid  flesh  would  melt!"  No 
indication  whatever  of  insanity  here.  At  its  close, 
Horatio,  Bernardo  and  Marcellus  enter  and  impart 
to  him  the  information  of  the  ghostly  visit  paid  to 
them  by  the  spirit  of  Hamlet's  father.  This  naturally 
amazes  the  Prince,  but  throughout  the  dialogue  that 
follows  between  him  and  his  friends  there  is  not  the 
least  sign  of  mental  derangement.  Hamlet  now 
realizes  that  something  is  radically  wrong  regarding 
the  death  of  his  father,  and  he  looks  anxiously  for 
the  coming  of  the  hour  when  he  is  to  go  forth  to  meet 
the  ghostly  visitor. 

We  next  see  Hamlet  upon  the  platform  of  the  castle 
awaiting  the  coming  of  his  father's  spirit.  He  con- 
verses normally  with  Horatio  and  Marcellus,  no  symp- 
toms of  insanity  being  visible.  On  the  appearance 
of  the  Ghost  he  is  naturally  excited,  but  no  more  so 
than  were  Horatio  and  his  companions  when  they  first 
beheld  it.     Horatio  pictures  the  scene  thus: 

A  figure  like  your  father, 
Arm'd  at  all  points,  exactly,  cap-a-pe, 
Appears  before  them,  and  with  solemn  march 
Goes  slow  and  stately  by  them;  thrice  he  walk'd 
By  their  oppress'd  and  fear-surprised  eyes, 
Within  his  truncheon's  length ;  whilst  they,  distill'd 
Almost  to  jelly  with  the  act  of  fear, 
Stand  dumb,  and  speak  not  to  him.^ 

If  these  soldiers  were  so  strangely  affected  by  what 
they  saw,  why  should  one  marvel  if  Hamlet's  nerves 
had  been  shaken  on  beholding  his  father's  ghost ?    And 

lAct  I.  Scene  II. 

[15] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEAEE 

yet,  up  to  the  close  of  Scene  IV.  Act  I.,  during  which 
Hamlet  addresses  the  Ghost  but  it  does  not  reply  to 
him  in  words,  he  has  borne  himself  with  remarkable 
fortitude.  So  far,  then,  no  reason  has  been  discovered 
in  the  play  for  considering  Hamlet  at  all  irrational. 
The  scene  now  changes  to  a  more  removed  part  of 
the  platform  of  the  castle,  and  the  interview  here 
takes  place  between  Hamlet  and  the  Ghost  that  ac- 
quaints the  Prince  with  the  circumstances  of  his 
father's  death.  Hamlet  suspected  that  his  father  did 
not  die  a  natural  death,  this  is  attested  by  the 
following : 

Ghost. 

— but  know,  thou  noble  youth, 

The  serpent  that  did  sting  thy  father's  life 

Now  wears  his  crown. 
Hamlet. 

O,  my  prophetic  soul!  my  uncle !^ 

This  clearly  denotes  that  suspicion  regarding  the 
manner  of  his  father's  taking  off  had  dwelt  in  the 
mind  of  Hamlet  previous  to  the  opening  of  the  play, 
and  accounts  for  his  extreme  expression  of  his  grief 
in  Scene  II.  Act  I.  Had  his  father  surrendered  up 
his  life  at  the  call  of  Nature,  Hamlet  would  have 
mourned  his  death  as  became  the  son  of  a  noble  parent ; 
but  when  suspicion  entered  his  mind  that  the  death 
was  brought  about  by  foul  means  instigated  by  the 
brother  of  this  righteous  king  his  soul  was  sorely  dis- 
tressed and  he  mourned,  not  only  the  death  of  his 
father,  but  the  baseness  of  his  uncle  and  the  perfidy 

2Act  I.   Scene  V. 

[16] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

of  his  mother.  Thus,  then,  there  are  substantial 
CfiaSQlJS.iQr.  Hamlet  doiming  a  cloak  of  inky  blackness. 
It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  Hamlet  was  momen- 
tarily overcome  by  emotion  at  the  recital  of  the  Ghost 's 
harrowing  tale,  and  that  he  should  exclaim : 

Hold,  hold,  my  heart! 
And  you,  my  sinews,  gi'ow  not  instant  old, 
But  bear  me  stiffly  up.^ 

What  son  would  not  be  so  affected  by  like  circum- 
stances? Were  he  not,  he  would  indeed  be  either  a 
strange  specimen  of  humanity  or  else  a  fit  candidate 
for  an  asylum. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  Hamlet  lived  in  a 
barbarous  age,  was  a  resident  of  a  state  whose  king 
had  conunitted  murder  in  order  to  gain  the  crown 
and  w^ho  would  not  hesitate  to  do  other  murders  to 
retain  it.  He  knew  his  life  was  in  danger,  and  there- 
fore he  decided  "to  put  an  antic  disposition  on"  the 
better  to  hide  his  purpose  from  the  King  and  to 
safeguard  his  life.  Note  the  oath  to  which  Horatio 
and  Marcellus  subscribe: 

Here,  as  before,  never,  so  help  you  mercy, 
How  strange  or  odd  soe'er  I  bear  myself; — 
As  I,  perchance,  hereafter  shall  think  meet 
To  put  an  antic  disposition  on; — 
That  you,  at  such  times  seeing  me,  never  shall, 
With  arms  encumber'd  thus,  or  this  head-shake, 
Or  by  pronouncing  of  some  doubtful  phrase, 
As,  "Well,  well,  we  know;'" — or,  "We  could, 

an  if  we  would;" — 
Or,   "If  we  list  to  speak;" — or,   "There  be, 

an  if  they  might;" — 

'Act   I.   Scene   V. 

[17] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Or  such  ambiguous  giving-out,  to  note 

That  you  know  aught  of  me : — this  not  to  do, 

So  grace  and  mercy  at  your  most  need  help  you.* 

Thus  does  Hamlet  tell  his  two  friends  that  he  intends 
to  assume  the  mask  of  madness,  and  binds  them  not  to 
divulge  his  secret.  Tlie  language  and  all  the  attendant 
circumstances  are  so  plain  as  to  shut  out  the  necessity 
for  further  comment  as  to  the  assumption  of  madness. 
Up  to  this  point  he  has  acted  in  a  quiet,  calm  and 
controlled  manner,  but  henceforth  he  puts  "an  antic 
disposition  on ' '  when  it  suits  his  purpose  to  do  so. 
Such  an  occasion  is  described  by  Ophelia  when  she 

says : 

• 

My  lord,  as  I  was  sewing  in  my  chamber, 

Lord  Hamlet, — with  his  doublet  all  unbrac'd; 

No  hat  upon  his  head;  his  stockings  foul'd, 

Ungarter'd,  and  down-gyved  to  his  ankle; 

Pale  as  his  shirt;  his  knees  knocking  each  other; 

And  with  a  look  so  piteous  in  purport, 

As  if  he  had  been  loosed  out  of  hell, 

To  speak  of  horrors, — he  comes  before  me.^ 

Hamlet  appeared  thus  before  Ophelia  with  the  pur- 
pose of  testing  her  loyalty  to  him.  He  knew  the  King 
to  be  the  murderer  of  his  father,  that  his  mother  was 
false  to  her  marriage  vows  and  had  linked  her  for- 
tunes with  those  of  her  paramour  by  wedding  him, 
that  Polonius  was  a  man  who  could  serve  two  masters 
and  would  stoop  to  any  act  that  would  further  his 
own  cause.  Thus  was  he  surrounded  by  his  enemies 
and  compelled  to  move  with  great  caution.  It,.was 
his  desire  to  find  out  whether  the  woman  of  his  heart 


*Act  I.   Scene  V. 
^Act  II.  Scene  I. 


[18] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

would  stand  with  him  in  the  battle  he  was  about  to 
wage  to  avenge  his  father's  wrongs  or  would  ally  her- 
self with  his  enemies  that  caused  him  to  go  thus 
habited  into  the  chamber  of  Ophelia.  That  she  could 
not  be  relied  upon  is  attested  by  the  fact  that  she  im- 
mediately carried  the  story  in  all  its  detail  to  her 
father  and  thence  to  the  King  and  Queen,  finally 
allowing  herself  to  be  used  as  a  decoy  to  lure  Hamlet 
into  the  hands  of  his  enemies. 

The  scene  between  Hamlet  and  Polonius,  and  later 
the  one  that  introduces  Rosencrantz  and  Guildenstern, 
are  on  their  face  so  clearly  ones  of  strategy  on  the 
part  of  Hamlet,  indicating  unmistakably  that  he  is 
fencing  with  his  adversaries,  that  little  comment  is 
necessary.  It  may  be  well,  however,  to  call  attention 
to  the  situation  that  is  developed  by  Hamlet  conjur- 
ing his  two  associates  by  the  rights  of  fellowship  to 
be  honest  with  him.  By  putting  the  "antic  disposi- 
tion on"  he  has  thrown  both  Rosencrantz  and  Guil- 
denstern off  their  guard  and  they  confess  that  they 
were  sent  by  the  King  and  Queen  to  fathom  Hamlet. 
Then  follows  that  poetically  beautiful  passage  com- 
mencing, ' '  I  will  tell  you  why. ' '  * 

"We  have  now  come  to  the  cjueial  test  of  Ophelia's 
character,  and  to  the  point  that  demonstrates  clearly 
the  sanity  of  Hamlet. 

The  scene  is  set  for  the  trapping  of  Hamlet.  The 
King  and  Polonius  are  behind  the  arras,  Ophelia  is 
given  a  book  and  told  to  walk  in  the  Prince's  path 
in  order  that  a  meeting  may  be  brought  about  within 
sight  and  hearing  of  the  two  hidden  watchers.    Hamlet 

8Act  II.   Scene  II. 

[19] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

enters,  debating  with  himself  the  problems  of  life 
as  they  then  confront  him.  He  turns  and  beholds 
Ophelia,  meditating,  as  he  supposes,  over  a  book  of 
prayers,  and  salutes  her  gravely: 

N3rmph,  in  thy  orisons 
Be  all  my  sins  remember'd.^ 

ffi^en,  however,  she  offers  to  return  to  him  the  gifts 
of  love  he  had  bestowed  upon  her,  he  immediately 
Inspects  her  loyalty  to  him  and  resumes  his  role  of 
Inadness.  When  he  asks  her  the  whereabouts  of  her 
father  and  she  guiltily  replies  that  he  is  at  home,  he 
sees  through  her  falsehood  and  assumes  more  closely 
the  mask  of  insanity.  The  King,  however,  has  pierced 
the  mask,  and  toward  the  close  of  the  scene  sagely 
remarks  to  Polonius: 

Love!  his  affections  do  not  that  way  tend; 
Nor  what  he  spake,  though  it  lack'd  form  a  little, 
Was  not  like  madness.    There's  something  in  his  soul. 
O'er  which  his  melancholy  sits  on  brood.* 

In  the  scene  that  follows,  we  have  Hamlet 's  wonder- 
ful address  to  the  players.  No  insane  man  could  ever 
possess  such  illuminating  thoughts,  let  alone  express 
them,  as  are  uttered  in  this  instructive  speech. 

During  the  enacting  of  the  play  arranged  to  dis- 
cover the  guilt  of  King  Claudius,  the  behavior  of 
Hamlet  is  watchful  and  penetrating,  showing  the 
keenness  of  the  alert,  healthy-^flaifwi',  and  not  the  cun- 
ning of  the  diseased  one.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  interview  that  follows  with  Rosencrantz  and 
Guildeustern  where,  after  playing  with  these  spies 

'  Act  III.  Scene  I. 
8  Ibid. 

[20] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

of  the  King,  he  asks  them  to  play  the  recorders,  and, 
on  their  confession  of  inability  to  do  so,  strips  the 
mask  of  deceit  from  them  and  lets  them  understand 
that  he  knows  they  have  been  lying  to  him.  No  trace 
of  insanity  in  all  this.  Rather  the  masterful  control 
of  the  well-balanced  intellect. 

We  now  come  to  the  interview  between  Hamlet  and 
his  mother,  Scene  IV.  Act  III.  Here  he  throws  aside 
kll  pretense  and  is  simply  the  indignant  son  upbraid- 
ing the  mother  for  her  shameful  conduct  and  urging 
per  to  repent  and  reform,  save  at  the  moment  when 
Polonius,  in  answer  to  the  call  of  the  Queen,  cries 
out  for  help.  Hamlet,  believing  that  it  is  the  King 
who  is  eavesdropping,  dons  his  "antic  disposition" 
ind  kills  the  listener.  On  learning  that  Polonius  is 
Ihe  victim,  he  discards  his  disguise  and  returns  once 
more  to  his  own  character  of  the  outraged  son.  There 
is  no  indication  of  madness  in  this  highly  dramatic 
scene,  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  active  in  the 
play,  unless  Hamlet's  seeing  of  the  Ghost  be  con- 
strued into  one.  This,  however,  would  be  a  false 
construction.  Shakespeare,  for  the  purposes  of  his 
drama  and  because  at  the  time  its  action  is  supposed 
to  take  place  the  people  believed  in  ghosts  and  spirits, 
makes  the  unearthly  visitor  visible  to  Horatio,  Mar- 
cellus  and  Bernardo,  and  unless  we  agree  that  be- 
cause of  this  these  three  are  insane,  we  cannot  justly 
assign  it  as  evidence  of  the  insanity  of  Hamlet. 

In  Scene  11.  Act  IV.  Hamlet  puts  on  his  "antie 
dispositioa.!--  the  better  to  puzzle  and  confound  Rosen- 

[21] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

crantz  and  Guildenstern,  this  being  indicated  by  his 
talking  in  riddles  to  them,  thus: 

Kos.  What  have  you  done,  my  lord,  with  the 
dead  body? 

Ham.    Compounded  it  with  dust,  whereto  'tis  kin. 

Ros.     Tell  me  where  'tis;   that  we  may  take  it 
thence, 
And  bear  it  to  the  chapel. 

Ham.    Do  not  believe  it. 

Ros.     Believe  what? 

Ham.  That  I  can  keep  your  counsel,  and  not  mine 
own.  Besides,  to  be  demanded  of  a 
sponge,  what  replication  should  be  made 
by  the  son  of  a  king? 

Ros.     Take  you  me  for  a  sponge,  my  lord? 

Ham.  Ay,  sir;  that  soaks  up  the  king's  coun- 
tenance, his  rewards,  his  authorities. 
But  such  ofiicers  do  the  king  best  serv- 
ice in  the  end:  he  keeps  them,  as  an 
ape  doth  nuts,  in  the  corner  of  his  jaw ; 
first  mouth'd,  to  be  last  swallowed: 
When  he  needs  what  you  glean'd,  it  as 
but  squeezing  you,  and,  sponge,  you 
shall  be  dry  again. 

Ros.     I  understand  you  not,  my  lord. 

Ham.  I  am  glad  of  it :  a  knavish  speech  sleeps 
in  a  foolish  ear. 

In  the  interview  between  Hamlet  and  the  King 
which  takes  place  in  the  scene  that  follows  (Scene  III. 
Act.  IV.),  the  same  reasons  exist  for  the  assumption 
of  madness  as  were  pointed  out  in  Scene  II.,  and 
Hamlet  adopts  a  like  way  of  showing  it. 

When  Hamlet  meets  with  the  army  of  Norway 
under  command  of  young  Fortinbras,  he  enters  into 
conversation  with  one  of  the  captains  and  questions 
him  sanely  regarding  the  purpose  of  the  expedition, 

[22] 


TYPES    OP    CHARACTERS 

ajid .  a.tthe_  close  of  the  intervicAV  soliloquizes  sagely 
oil  his  own  conduct.  Here  there  is  no  need  to  dis- 
semble, and  Hamlet  talks  and  acts  as  a  perfectly 
normal  being. 

From  this  point  there  is  nothing  in  the  play  that 
can  be  forced  into  even  an  appearance  of  madness 
in  Hamlet,  so  the  question  will  be  pursued  no  further. 
Those  who  do  not  at  first  reading  agree  with  the 
conclusions  here  set  down  are  requested  to  study  the 
tragedy  itself  with  an  unprejudiced  mind,  thus  pre- 
venting the  entrance  of  a  third  estate  between  them- 
selves and  the  matter.  The  truth  is  within  the  text, 
so  "seek  and  ye  shall  find." 

Hamlet  was  no  coward,  he  did  not  lack  will  power, 
and  he  was  not  deficient  in  action. 

He  bravely  went  forth  to  meet  the  Ghost,  and  per- 
sisted in  following  it  to  a  more  removed  part  of  the 
platform,  even  though  Horatio  and  Marcellus  im- 
plored him  not  to  do  so,  and  warned  him  that  the 
Ghost  perhaps  purposed  to  do  him  harm.  He  hesi- 
tated not  to  face  Laertes  in  the  bout,  and  he  bore 
himself  like  a  soldier  and  a  gentleman  throughout  it. 

It  was  not  lack  of  courage  that  caused  Hamlet  to 
)ut  off  the  satisfaction  of  his  revenge,  but  a  noble  and 
lofty  spirit  of  morality  that  would  not  permit  him 
to  become  a  common  assassin.  He  believed  in  a  future 
Existence,  and  ' '  that  dread  of  something  after  death ' ' 
\e\d  him  in  check  until  he  was  convinced  of  his  uncle 's 
lilt.  His  conscience  was  acute  and  warned  him  the 
istant  that  his  passion  was  about  to  carry  him  into 
bror.      The    injunction   of   the    Ghost   was   that   he 

[23] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

should  avenge  the  foul  murder  of  his  father,  but  there 
'7as  another  injunction  laid  upon  him  by  command 
( f  God,  ' '  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder, ' '  which  held  him 
11  restraint  until  he  satisfied  himself  that  he  was  the 
^venging  minister  of  Heaven.  He  could  be  an  avenger, 
But  he  would  not  be  a  murderer. 

There  was  no  lack  of  will  power  in  Hamlet  as  he 
is  drawn  by  Shakespeare.  Those  who  claim  that  the 
character  evinces  such  a  weakness  err  in  their  con- 
ception of  the  meaning  of  the  word  "wiU."  What 
does  the  word  signify?  It  means  the  power  of  con- 
verting thought  into  action.  The  essentials  of  will 
are  (1)  Choice:  the  power  by  which,  after  considera- 
tion, one  selects  an  end  of  action;  (2)  Purpose:  an 
act  of  the  will  deciding  on  the  accomplishing  of  a 
choice;  and  (3)  Volition:  the  faculty  of  the  wdll, 
whereby  the  powers  are  centered  on  the  attainment 
of  the  chosen  and  determined  end.  In  few  words, 
Will  is  the  power  of  the  mind  to  control  action. 

To  will  does  not  signify  merely  the  doing  of  an 
act.  It  means  also  refraining  from  the  doing.  Just 
as  much  will-power  is  required  to  keep  one  from 
action  as  is  necessary  to  force  one  to  it;  therefore 
when  Hamlet  determined  to  satisfy  himself  that  the 
Ghost  was  an  honest  one  before  he  would  take  its 
word,  and  to  refrain  from  killing  the  King  while  on 
his  knees  in  prayer  beseeching  forgiveness,  he  was 
exercising  the  power  of  will  to  a  greater  extent  than 
if  he  rushed  blindly  forward  to  positive  action. 

This  is  the  man  that  the  author  conceives  Shake- 
speare to  have  drawn  in  his  character  of  Hamlet :    A 

[24] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

man  of  deep  sensibilities,  great  intellect  and  noble? 
qualities.  A  man  shouldered  with  responsibilities  that 
he  dared  not  escape  and  yet  dreaded  to  perform.  A 
man  to  whom  all,  save  one,*  were  disloyal.  A  man  of 
whom  it  might  be  truly  said: 

Now  cracks  a  noble  heart!    Good  night,  sweet  prince; 
And  flights  of  angels  sing  thee  to  thy  rest.^* 

The  Character  of  Macbeth 

One  of  the  principal  traits  in  the  character  of 
Macbeth  was  his  imagination.  While  he  was  a 
soldier  and  a  man  of  action,  still  he  was  a  thinker 
and  a  poet,  and  possessed  those  finer  and  higher 
qualities  of  the  mind  which,  had  they  not  been  crushed 
or  set  aside  by  material  ambition,  would  have  made 
him  a  refined  and  noble  being.  Had  he  been  left  to 
himself  he  never  would  have  killed  his  king,  nor  in 
any  manner  departed  from  the  path  of  honor;  but 
his  nature  was  receptive,  he  was  easily  influenced  by 
a  will  stronger  than  his  own,  and  he  finally  became 
a  puppet  in  the  hands  of  the  masterful  woman  who 
dominated  his  life.  It  is  not  the  intention  of  the 
author  to  shield  Macbeth  from  the  consequences  of  his 
acts,  nor  to  place,  without  reason,  the  blame  for  his 
fall  upon  the  woman,  repeating  the  words  of  Adam, 
"The  woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be  with  me,  she 
gave  me  of  the  tree, "  ^  ^  but  to  analyze  and  weigh  the 
character  as  it  is  depicted  to  his  mind  by  the  Dram- 
atist, and  to  find  the  causes  that  governed  it.     In 

^  Horatio. 

i<" 'Hamlet,"    Act   V.   Scene   II. 

^'Genesis   II.    12. 

[25] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEAKE 

thus  looking  beyond  the  effects  and  tracing  them  back 
to  their  source  we  can  plainly  see  that  the  pencil  of 
fate  that  wrote  the  life  of  Macbeth  was  held  within 
the  fingers  of  his  wife. 

That  Macbeth  entertained  the  hope  of  being  king 
of  Scotland  before  the  play  actually  opens  is  no  doubt 
true,  it  is  reflected  in  his  attitude  in  the  first  interview 
with  the  Witches  when  he  starts  on  being  hailed  as 
"king  hereafter,"  ^^  but  that  he  purposed  to  murder 
Duncan  is  nowhere  apparent  until  after  his  wife  has 
suggested  "the  nearest  way."  ^'  Thus  is  the  parable 
of  the  fall  of  man  further  followed  in  that  Lady 
Macbeth  devilishly  injects  the  virus  of  evil  into  the 
mind  of  her  husband  as  did  the  serpent  whisper  the 
temptation  into  the  ear  of  Eve. 

In  the  early  scenes  of  the  play  there  is  a  tre- 
mendous struggle  in  the  mind  of  Macbeth  which 
shows  the  workings  of  his  conscience,  and  this  con- 
science would  have  won  the  victory  had  not  the  powers 
of  evil  been  reinforced  by  the  o'er  mastering  influence 
of  the  wife.  In  these  early  scenes  Macbeth  is  de- 
picted as  more  conscientious  than  his  wife,  she 
stronger  intellectually  than  he ;  but  in  the  later  scenes, 
after  he  has  taken  the  plunge  into  sin,  she  appears 
the  weaker  mentally  and  he  the  stronger,  although 
both  are  now  dead  to  the  voice  of  conscience — save 
Lady  Macbeth  when  lost  in  sleep.  After  Macbeth 
once  embarks  in  crime,  after  he  has  befouled  his  hands 
in  the  innocent  blood  of  his  fellowman,  once  he  is 


i^Act  I.   Scene  III. 
13 Act  I.   Scene  V. 


[26] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

launched  on  the  sea  of  infamy,  he  knows  no  bounds 
but  rushes  from  crime  to  crime,  fairly  swimming  in 
blood,  and  is  finally  overwhelmed  by  the  forces  which 
he  himself  created  by  his  wickedness  and  cruelty. 
Being  recreant  to  his  own  duties,  false  to  his  own 
king  and  to  his  own  conception  of  right,  he  thinks 
everyone  else  is  base  and  false.  He  thus  suspects 
those  around  him,  loses  control  over  himself,  permits 
his  mind  to  deal  with  confused  metaphors,  and  be- 
comes a  wretched  creature  blown  hither  and  thither 
by  the  winds  of  doubt.  Macbeth  was  a  brave  man 
physically,  but  he  was  an  arrant  coward  mentally. 
He  could  fight  to  the  death  with  Macduff,  but  he  fled 
from  his  better  self. 

Deftly   and   accurately   Lady   Macbeth   draws   the 
character  of  her  husband: 

Glamis  thou  art,  and  Cawdor;  and  shalt  be 

What  thou  art  proinis'd. — Yet  do  I  fear  thy  nature: 

It  is  too  full  o'  the  milk  of  human  kindness 

To  catch  the  nearest  way:    Thou  wouldst  be  great; 

Art  not  without  ambition;  but  without 

The  illness  should  attend  it :   what  thou  wouldst  highly, 

That  wouldst  thou  holily;  wouldst  not  play  false, 

And  yet  wouldst  wrongly  win.^* 

There  is  no  getting  around  this  passage  by  claiming, 
as  some  editors  do,  that  Lady  Macbeth  in  thus  de- 
scribing Macbeth  is  revealing  her  own  character.  She 
has  her  husband  in  mind  when  speaking  the  lines, 
has  been  poring  over  the  letter  containing  the  proph- 
esy of  the  Witches,  and  has  been  devising  means 
for  bringing  about  the  end  she  so  fervently  desires. 

i*Act  I.  Scene  V. 

[27] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

In  her  cogitations  she  has  analyzed  her  husband's 
nature,  sees  all  his  traits  and  then  gives  voice  to  them. 
It  is  because  she  finds  him  full  of  ' '  human  kindness, ' ' 
understands  that  he  is  ambitious,  but  sees  also  that 
he  is  not  basely  ambitious,  and  knows  his  conscien- 
tious scruples,  that  she  longs  for  his  early  home  com- 
ing in  order  that  she  may  saturate  him  with  her  views 
and  control  him  by  means  of  her  strong  mentality. 
Therefore  she  exclaims : 

Hie  thee  hither, 
That  I  may  pour  my  spirits  in  thine  ear. 
And  chastise  with  the  valor  of  my  tongue 
All  that  impedes  thee  from  the  golden  round, 
Which  fate  and  metaphysical  aid  doth  seem 
To  have  thee  crown'd  withal.^  ^ 

This  is  all  so  plain  that  further  comment  as  to  Lady 
Macbeth 's  conception  of  her  husband's  character 
would  be  superfluous. 

Macbeth  was  much  of  a  philosopher,  resembling  in 
this  respect,  strange  though  it  may  appear,  the  char- 
acter of  Hamlet.  He  traces  the  processes  of  the  mind, 
studies  the  consequences  of  evil,  weighs  the  effects  of 
actions,  and  is  decidedly  of  a  meditative  nature.  He 
thinks  before  he  acts,  and,  even  though  the  thinking 
does  not  prevent  the  action,  it  shows  the  motion  of 
the  aroused  conscience  and  the  application  of  the 
mental  faculty.  The  fact  that  he  fails  to  control  his 
mentality  at  the  behest  of  conscience,  but  listens,  in- 
stead, to  the  voice  of  the  temptress,  giving  way 
before  her  scourging  tongue  and  surrendering  his 
convictions  at  her  command,  is  but  evidence  of  his 

11^  Act  I.  Scene  V. 

[28] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

mental  cowardice.  We  can  feel  no  admiration  for 
such  a  creature,  but  we  can,  and  do,  experience  pity 
at  the  failure  of  such  a  character  to  fulfill  its  fair 
promise.  Macbeth  possessed  all  the  attributes  that 
go  to  the  making  of  a  man,  save  one — mental  courage. 
Lacking  this,  all  the  others  availed  him  nothing. 
Proof  of  this  assertion  might  be  produced  from  the 
pages  of  the  play  until  piled  "mountain  high,"  but 
to  cite  such  evidence  would  be  a  waste  of  space  and 
time  when  the  student  in  search  of  it  has  only  to 
turn  to  Macbeth 's  soliloquies  and  speeches  to  find  it 
for  himself. 

Macbeth  is  a  masterful  creation,  evincing,  with 
Hamlet  and  Lear,  the  marvelous  knowledge  of  meta- 
physics, so  far  as  that  science  applies  to  the  mind, 
that  Shakespeare  possessed.  The  Dramatist  shows 
us  the  mind  in  all  its  phases  and  actions;  lays  bare 
its  workings  when  debating  a  thought,  weighing  its 
effects,  or  discounting  its  influence ;  planning  a  deed, 
mapping  out  the  mode  of  procedure,  or  anticipating 
its  accomplishment — in  fact,  he  reveals  to  us  the  mind 
and  heart,  yea,  the  very  soul  of  man  and  woman  as 
though  he  were  a  creator  of  them  in  reality  and  not 
merely  of  their  "counterfeit  presentments." 

Macbeth  does  not  shirk  responsibility  for  his  acts, 
he  does  not  throw  the  fault  upon  fate,  he  blames  not 
the  Witches  for  his  entrance  upon  crime.  No,  he 
does  none  of  those  things,  but  considers  himself  a 
free  agent  and  acts  accordingly.  He  is  not  aware 
of  the  great  influence  wielded  over  him  by  his  wife, 
but  he  loves  her,  has  implicit  faith  in  her,  respects  her 

[29] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

mental  powers,  her  great  will  and  her  keenness  of 
vision,  and  gladly  lends  himself  to  her  guidance. 
Their  married  state  was  happy,  their  domestic  life 
free  from  strife,  and  their  two  dissimilar  natures 
seemed  to  weld  together  into  a  congenial  whole,  mak- 
ing the  one  harmonious  being.  Sad,  indeed,  that 
crime  should  have  entered  such  a  tranquil  abode  to 
mar  its  peace.  Had  it  been  absent,  we  should  have 
heard  the  song  of  the  lark  and  not  the  screeching  of 
the  owl.  But  the  evil-disposed  will  of  the  woman  and 
the  moral  weakness  of  the  man  brought  about  the 
awful  story  as  told  in  The  Tragedy  of  Macbeth. 

The  Character  of  Othello 

Othello,  thou  perplexed  soul,  what  judgment  shall 
be  rendered  against  thee  ?  Let  the  words  of  thy  mouth 
pronounce  it: 

Speak  of  me  as  I  am;  nothing  extenuate, 

Nor  set  down  aught  in  malice;  then,  must  you  speak 

Of  one  that  lov'd,  not  wisely,  but  too  well; 

Of  one  not  easily  jealous,  but,  being  wrought, 

Perplex'd  in   the  extreme;   of  one  whose  hand. 

Like  the  base  Indian,  threw  a  pearl  away. 

Richer  than  all  his  tribe;  of  one  whose  subdued  eyes, 

Albeit  unused  to  the  melting  mood. 

Drop  tears  as  fast  as  the  Arabian  trees 

Their  medicinal  gum.^' 

Seldom  is  it  given  a  person  to  read  his  own 
character  as  OtheUo  here  reads  his.  He  was  of  a 
loving  nature,  possessed  great  faith  in  the  purity  of 
woman,  never  speaking  of  her  in  the  sneering,  sensual 

lo' 'Othello,"   Act  V.  Scene  II. 

[30] 


TYPES  OF  CHARACTERS 

lan^age  of  lago,  nor  even  of  Cassio ;  prized  his  honor 
more  than  his  life,  and  loved  his  wife  better  than 
himself.  How  comes  it,  then,  that  such  a  noble  crea- 
ture became  the  tool  of  a  scheming,  unscrupulous 
villain?  Through  his  faith  in  the  honesty  of  others. 
It  might  then  be  asked.  Why  did  he  not  show  his 
faith  by  trusting  in  the  purity  and  loyalty  of 
Desdemona?  This  he  did  until  his  jealousy  had  been 
aroused  by  lago  and  every  circumstance  of  time,  place 
and  person  confirmed  suspicion.  The  very  innocence 
of  Desdemona,  her  concern  for  Othello,  her  pleading 
in  behalf  of  Cassio,  the  stolen  handkerchief,  all  seem- 
ingly confirmed  the  tale  of  baseness  that  lago  poured 
into  Othello's  unlistening  ears  and  convinced  him  of 
his  wife 's  wantonness  even  against  his  own  love,  faith, 
and  judgment.  When  the  scheming  villain  fiirst  in- 
timates the  disloyalty  of  Othello's  wife,  the  noble- 
hearted  Moor  spurns  belief  in  its  possibility  from  him 
as  a  thing  incredible ;  when  lago  continues  to  thrust 
it  before  his  unwilling  mind,  he  takes  the  scoundrel 
by  the  throat  and  well-nigh  strangles  him.  But  the 
intellectual  villainy  of  lago  is  too  much  for  the  pure- 
heartedness  of  Othello  and  he  soon  after  succumbs  to 
the  baleful  influence  of  the  plotting  scoundrel.  When 
this  occurs  we  come  to  the  turning  point  of  the  play — 
the  center  of  the  arch. 

Othello  was  not  jealous  by  nature,  but  he  became 
rich  ground  for  the  sowing  of  the  seeds  of  jealousy 
at  the  cunning  hand  of  the  crafty  lago  because  of 
his  great  love  for  Desdemona.  His  speech,  his  mind, 
his  heart,  were  all  open,  and  they  were  all  pure  until 

[31] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

the  doubt  of  the  honesty  of  the  woman  who  was  dearer 
to  him  than  life  itself  changed  his  entire  being  and 
made  him  as  putty  in  the  hands  of  the  intelligent  liar 
who  posed  as  his  faithful  officer  and  loving  friend, 
lago  undoubtedly  exercised  great  influence  over 
Othello,  and  because  of  this  influence  we  are  com- 
pelled to  study  the  character  of  lago  in  order  that 
we  may  understand  that  of  Othello.  The  Moor's 
every  act  that  succeeded  his  marriage  was  the  effect 
of  some  cause  that  had  its  origin  in  the  fertile  brain 
of  the  Ancient,  and  in  order  that  we  may  under- 
stand the  effect  we  must  study  the  cause.  It  there- 
fore appears  as  though  lago  was  the  greater  person. 
He  was,  so  far  as  intelligent  cunning  is  concerned; 
but  in  integrity  of  purpose,  love  of  truth,  and  kind- 
ness of  heart,  Othello  made  him  kick  the  beam.  When 
we  compare  the  intellect  of  the  two  men,  lago  does 
not  suffer  in  comparison  with  Othello;  but  when  we 
come  to  weigh  their  characters,  it  is  as  though  a  feather 
were  placed  in  the  balance  against  a  nugget  of  gold. 
The  character  of  Othello  is  well  expressed  by  lago  in 
the  following  lines : 

The  Moor  is  of  a  free  and  open  nature, 
That  thinks  men  honest  that  but  seem  to  be.^' 

He  certainly  was  generous,  frank,  open  and  confiding, 
thinking  men  honest  until  they  proved  themselves 
otherwise,  and  because  he  possessed  a  nature  such  as 
this  he  became  the  ready  tool  of  one  who  looked  upon 
all  men  as  false  and  all  women  as  fickle. 

The  great  battle  that  Othello  had  to  fight  was  not 

IT  Act  I.  Scena  III. 

[32] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

against  jealousy,  but,  as  he  himself  states  it,  against 
the  foes  who  would  tarnish  his  honor.  Therefore, 
when  he  believes  Desdemona  has  become  his  worst 
enemy  by  besmirching  his  sacred  honor  which  he  had 
placed  in  her  keeping,  he  turns  upon  her  as  he  would 
upon  one  who  dared  advise  him  to  be  a  traitor  to  his 
country.  She  was  his  all  in  all  so  long  as  she  was 
worthy  of  his  love;  but  when  he  became  persuaded 
that  she  had  tarnished  his  honor,  then  his  love  died 
and  the  stern  avenger  sprang  into  life.  Thus  does 
he  voice  his  thought : 

I'll  see,  before  I  doubt;  when  I  doubt,  prove; 
And,  on  the  proof,  there  is  no  more  but  this, — 
Away  at  once  with  love  or  jealousy.^* 

There  are  some  natures  that  when  once  they  love  they 
continue  to  do  so  even  after  the  attributes  that  caused 
them  to  love  have  passed  from  the  beloved  object,  but 
with  Othello  it  was  different.  He  could  love  only 
those  worthy  to  be  loved;  and  as  soon  as  the  worthi- 
ness departed,  the  love  ceased  to  exist.  Here  is  his 
view: 

She's  gone;  I  am  abus'd;  and  my  relief 
Must  be  to  loathe  her.^' 

She  in  whom  he  had  placed  his  greatest  trust  had, 
to  his  mind,  proved  recreant  to  it,  therefore  his  sense 
of  honor  compelled  him  to  spurn  her  from  him.  His 
way  of  looking  upon  this  question  is  revealed  to  us 
in  his  expressive  words  to  Cassio,  spoken  to  that  officer 


i»Act  III.  Scene  III. 
i»Ibid. 


[33] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

when  he  learned  he  had  been  false  to  the  trust  imposed 

in  him: 

Cassio,  I  love  thee; 
But  never  more  be  officer  of  mine/" 

Thus  the  captain,  jealous  of  his  honor  as  a  soldier, 
dismisses  the  lieutenant  whom  he  loves  because  of  his 
failure  in  the  line  of  duty.  So  also  the  husband, 
jealous  of  his  honor  as  a  man,  banishes  the  wife  when 
he  is  convinced  of  her  disloyalty. 

That  Othello  was  not  naturally  of  a  jealous  dis- 
position is  attested  by  many  circumstances,  viz. :  his 
failure  to  heed  Brabantio's  warning,  "She  has  de- 
ceived her  father,  and  may  thee,""^  his  faith  in  Desde- 
mona,  his  confidence  in  Cassio,  and  his  belief  in  the 
honesty  of  lago.  It  is  not  until  lago  recalls  to  his 
mind  the  fact  that  Desdemona's  father  has  bid  him 
beware  of  the  deceit  of  the  woman  he  had  just  taken 
to  wife  that  Othello  pays  any  attention  to  the  warn- 
ing, showing  that  he  was  not  jealous  of  Desdemona 
until  lago  spoke  those  fateful  words, 

Iago.     She  did  deceive  her  father,  marrying  you; 

And,  when  she  seem'd  to  shake,  and  fear 
your  looks, 

She  lov'd  them  most. 
Othello.  And  so  she  did.^^ 

Here  is  where  suspicion  regarding  the  actions  of 
Desdemona  enters  Othello's  mind,  the  poison  of 
jealousy  passes  like  a  drug  through  his  system,  his 
mental  balance  is  lost,  and  he  falls  a  prey  to  the 
knavery  of  lago. 


'"Act  II.   Scene  III. 
'lAct  I.   Scene  III. 
'2 Act  III.  Scene  III. 


[34] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

The  character  of  Othello  is  wonderfully  well  drawn, 
and  it  stands  in  its  majestic  grandeur  towering  above 
those  that  cluster  around  it.  The  whole  interest  of 
the  play  centers  in  Othello,  all  the  other  characters 
contribute  to  the  telling  of  his  story,  and  each  in  its 
turn  throws  its  light  upon  him,  revealing  some  trait 
in  his  nature  or  something  charaetistic  of  his  per- 
sonality. His  is  a  sad  story:  He  loved  deeply,  was 
sorely  tried,  sinned  grievously  (although  unknow- 
ingly), and  paid  an  awful  penalty.  His  life  was 
tempestuous  from  his  first  appearance  on  the  stage  un- 
til his  death,  and  as  the  final  curtain  falls  upon  him  we 
cannot  help  feeling  that  "he  was  more  sinned  against 
than  sinning." 

The  Character  of  Desdemona 

True  it  is  that  "what  we  are,  that  only  can  we 
see."  Desdemona  was  pure  in  heart  and  in  mind, 
pure  in  body  and  in  soul,  and  because  she  was  herself 
pure  she  saw  purity  in  others.  Not  only  did  she 
make  of  Othello  a  god  of  purity,  but  she  even  raised 
the  devil  lago  into  the  same  sublime  atmosphere.  Her 
innocence,  sad  though  it  may  be,  was  founded  on 
ignorance,  for  she  did  not  know  that  there  was  vile- 
ness  in  man  as  well  as  purity,  and  because  of  this 
ignorance  she  was  blind  to  the  snares  of  lago  and 
allowed  her  purity  of  thought  to  be  the  cause  of  her 
undoing. 

Desdemona  was  of  an  impressionable  nature  and 
easily  affected  by  outside  influences.  Reared  in  the 
seclusion  of  her  father's  palace,  shielded  from  the 

[35] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON   SHAKESPEARE 

evils  and  the  temptations  of  the  world,  she  grew  to 
womanhood  believing  that  all  creatures  were  pure 
like  herself,  so  when  Othello  appeared  as  her  father's 
guest  and  repeated  his  tales  of  adventures,  she  saw 
in  him  a  reflex  of  her  own  being  and  allowed  her 
heart  to  be  enfolded  in  his.  She  never  questioned 
the  truth  of  his  story,  she  did  not  heed  the  dark  com- 
plexion of  his  skin ;  she  saw  only  the  whiteness  of 
herself,  felt  her  being  respond  to  the  romantic  call 
of  his  manhood,  and  immediately  acknowledged  him 
as  her  lord  and  master.  It  is  here  the  one  blot  upon 
her  character  appears:  she  was  an  undutiful  child. 
When  she  felt  her  heart  drawn  toward  Othello  she 
gave  no  thought  to  her  father — the  father  who  had 
devoted  his  life  to  loving  and  protecting  her.  She 
allowed  herself  to  be  governed  by  this  new  love — 
this  mysterious  feeling  that  unconsciously  changed 
the  current  of  her  life — and  gave  no  heed  to  any  call 
but  that  of  the  one  within  her  that  cried  for  a  realiza- 
tion of  that  new  life  which  Othello's  magic  voice  and 
strong  personality  had  awakened.  Had  she  been  true 
to  her  father,  had  she  opened  her  heart  by  confiding 
to  him  a  knowledge  of  the  influence  Othello  was 
exerting  over  her  (not  drugs,  nor  charms,  but  a  mighty 
magic  greater  than  these),  she  would  have  been  saved 
from  the  terrible  catastrophe  that  her  silence  and 
deceit  imposed  upon  her.  True,  had  she  done  this, 
we  should  have  lost  one  of  the  great  tragedies,  her 
deceit  being  necessary  to  its  growth,  but  because  of 
this  deceit  we  have  an  imperfect  woman  in  the  char- 
acter of  Desdemona.     She  was  true  to  her  husband, 

[36] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

but  she  was  false  to  her  father,  and  this  falsehood 
brought  upon  her  all  the  suffering  of  her  young  mar- 
ried life,  her  untimely  death,  the  misery  of  her  people, 
and  the  ruin  and  suicide  of  her  husband.  Sad,  indeed, 
that  one  so  pure  should  be  the  cause  of  so  much  evil, 
but  ignorance  always  carries  a  train  of  misery  in  its 
wake.  Thus  is  our  Dramatist  true  to  nature  in  de- 
picting the  character  of  Desdemona  and  showing  the 
effect  of  her  actions.  Had  she  not  hidden  her  heart 
from  her  father,  had  he  not  uttered  those  words  of 
warning. 

Look  to  her,  Moor,  if  thou  hast  eyes  to  see: 
She  has  deceiv'd  her  father,  and  may  thee,^' 

the  mind  of  Othello  would  never  have  been  open  to  the 
poison  of  lago's  lying  tongue,  and  the  married  happi- 
ness of  Desdemona 's  life  would  not  have  been  marred. 

The  Character  of  Iago 

lago  has  been  pronounced  unnatural  and  impossi- 
ble by  many  Shakespearean  writers.  On  the  contrary, 
he  appears  to  the  author  to  be  as  natural  and  as 
possible  as  Othello  himself;  than  which,  no  character 
in  ancient  or  modern  drama  is  more  natural  and  more 
possible.  He  is  the  antithesis  of  Othello,  the  opposite 
to  him  in  everything, — in  stature,  complexion,  mode 
of  life,  conception  of  honor,  and  all  that  goes  to  the 
making  of  character.  It  is  because  of  this  polarity 
of  their  natures  that  we  must  study  both  characters 
before  we  can  know  either. 

2  3  Act  I.   Scene  IH. 

[37] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

The  one  great  trait  in  the  character  of  lago  is  his 
intellectuality.  Had  it  been  used  in  the  proper  direc- 
tion he  would  have  been  a  great  man,  but  as  it  was 
employed  in  the  wrong  direction  he  became  a  great 
scoundrel.  The  influences  that  acted  on  his  intellect 
and  made  him  a  cunning,  diabolical  villain,  are :  His 
love  of  money;  his  utter  lack  of  confidence  in  the 
honesty  of  man  and  woman ;  his  determination  to  use 
others  for  his  own  advancement,  irrespective  of  the 
consequence  to  them.  Acting  on  these  lines  he  became 
a  selfish,  cruel,  and  wicked  man,  devoid  of  honesty, 
unworthy  of  the  sacred  trust  reposed  in  him  by  Othello 
and  of  the  innocent  confidence  of  Desdemona. 

He  loved  money,  and  he  also  loved  to  acquire  it 
by  means  of  his  clever  manipulation  of  the  weaknesses 
of  those  he  imposed  upon.  He  gloried  in  making  his 
fool  his  purse,  praising  his  own  dexterity  in  wheedling 
money  from  the  poor  creature  and  treating  his  tool 
witli  scorn  for  being  thus  imposed  upon.  He  does 
not  scruple  to  use  underhand  methods  for  gaining 
his  purpose,  but  he  would  respect  the  prowess  of  one 
who  could  beat  him  at  his  own  game.  He  looks  upon 
virtue  as  belonging  to  fools,  honesty  as  non-existent, 
and  the  accomplishing  of  one's  purpose  legitimate 
under  any  and  all  circumstances.  ' '  Put  money  in  thy 
purse"  is  his  cry.  No  matter  what  means  you  em- 
ploy, "put  money  in  thy  purse."  Gain  your  aim 
no  matter  what  injustice  you  do  others  or  what  mis- 
fortunes you  bring  down  upon  them.  This  is  the 
policy  he  both  preached  and  practiced. 

Why  did  he  seek  the  ruin  of  Othello?     For  two 

[38] 


TYPES  OF  CHARACTERS 

reasons:  (1)  To  get  money  out  of  Roderigo;  (2)  to 
have  revenge  on  Othello.  Why  did  he  desire  revenge 
on  Othello?  For  two  reasons:  (1)  Because  Othello 
had  not  advanced  him  in  the  military  service  as  he 
considered  he  deserved;  (2)  for  the  reason  that  he 
suspected  Othello  had  been  unlawfully  intimate  with 
his  wife  Emilia.  No  matter  that  his  reasons  were 
merely  suspicions.  He  took  his  suspicions  as  actuali- 
ties and  determined  to  get  even  with  the  Moor  wife 
for  wife. 

lago  is  absolutely  dishonest  in  character;  vain  by 
nature,  his  vanity  is  aggravated  by  disappointment; 
envious  of  the  success  of  Othello,  his  envy  turns  bitter 
as  gall.  His  mind  was  depraved,  ever  dwelling  on 
lascivious  pictures  which  he  delighted  to  create.  He 
looked  for  the  worst  in  everyone,  and  if  he  did  not 
succeed  in  finding  it,  convinced  himself  by  his  evil 
reasoning  of  its  existence.  These  attributes  made 
him  a  dangerous  man,  a  cunning  schemer,  and  an 
infamous  villain,  but  he  is  true  to  nature  and  a  won- 
derful product  of  the  great  Dramatist. 

It  is  true  that  lago  despised  all  power  but  that  of 
the  intellect,  but  it  is  not  because  of  this  that  he  was 
of  a  b£Lse  nature.  Will  power  is  capable  of  great  good 
or  great  evil — the  result  depending  entirely  on  the 
direction  given  the  will — and  it  is  because  lago  chose 
to  devote  his  mental  powers  to  the  cause  of  depravity 
that  he  brought  about  the  misery  of  himself  and 
others.  Had  he  devoted  his  efforts  to  a  righteous  cause, 
he  would  have  been  as  successful  in  creating  happiness 

[39] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

as  he  was  in  producing  misery.  Mighty,  indeed,  is 
the  power  of  the  will.  It  is  godlike  when  properly 
directed,  but  devilish  when  working  in  behalf  of  evil. 

The  Chabacter  of  Lady  Macbeth 

The  character  of  Lady  Macbeth  has  been  studied  and 
analyzed  by  all  students  of  Shakespeare.  Teachers 
and  writers  have  dissected  her  character,  and  many 
editors  of  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  have  given  their 
views  concerning  it.  The  Tragedy  of  Macbeth  is  a 
part  of  the  English  course  in  most  preparatory 
schools,  and  it  is  one  of  the  most  widely  read  of  all 
Shakespeare's  plays.  Despite  these  facts  there  is  a 
tendency  on  the  part  of  writers  to  soften  the  inflexible 
hardness  of  character  of  this  remarkable  woman  in 
a  manner  not  warranted  by  the  facts  as  stated  by  the 
Dramatist.  Attributes  of  femininity  are  claimed  for 
her  that  are  nowhere  revealed  in  the  text  of  the  play, 
and  editors  read  into  the  character  traits  that  they 
assign  to  her  through  sympathy,  seeing  not  those  that 
are  given  to  her  by  her  creator.  Some  even  go  so  far 
as  to  reject  absolutely  all  evidence  she  gives  against 
herself.  True,  we  should  not  always  take  the  words 
as  spoken  by  a  character  at  their  face  value,  but  when 
a  description  of  the  nature  of  a  person  is  given  by  a 
character  itself,  and  this  description  is  corroborated 
by  other  characters  and  circumstances,  it  should  be 
accepted  with  as  much  faith  as  is  the  evidence  of  a 
witness  that  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  other 
witnesses. 

Following    the    evidence    of    the    play,    we    find 

[40] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

that  there  is  little  that  is  womanly — that  is,  sweetly 
feminine — in  the  nature  of  Lady  Macbeth.  She  shows 
little  real  heart-love  for  her  husband,  no  love  for  her 
children,  no  conception  of  the  duties  of  a  hostess,  no 
consideration  of  the  rights  of  others.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  ambition  is  her  governing  motive — not  for 
her  husband,  but  for  herself.  She  would  sacrifice 
parent,  husband,  child,  all  and  everything  for  posi- 
tion and  power,  and  in  this  she  is  true  to  nature,  only 
forecasting  the  attitude  of  many  women  of  modem 
times  who  sacrifice  all  that  the  true  woman  holds 
dear  in  order  that  they  may  gain  social  recognition 
and  advancement.  Hers  was  a  vaulting  ambition  that 
o'erleaped  itself  and  led  to  her  spiritual  extinction, 
her  madness,  and  her  physical  death.  This  is  a  severe 
arraignment,  and  a  wicked  one  if  not  borne  out  by 
the  facts.    Here  is  the  evidence. 

That  she  had  little  love  for  her  husband  is  shown 
in  the  greeting  she  bestows  upon  him  after  his  return 
from  a  successful  war: 

Great  Glamis!  worthy  Cawdor! 
Greater  than  both,  by  the  all-hail  hereafter! 
Thy  letters  have  transported  me  beyond 
This  ignorant  present,  and  I  feel  now 
The  future  in  the  instant."* 

No  wifely  greeting  here.  No  joy  at  her  hus- 
band's safe  return.  Nothing  but  a  bold  reception  to 
the  successful  captain  who,  by  his  prowess,  has  won 
fresh  laurels  for  himself — and  her.  Macbeth 's  saluta- 
tion for  his  wife  possesses  more  affection  than  does 

2* Act  I.  Scene  V. 

[41] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

hers  for  him.  He  addresses  her  as  '  *  my  dearest  love ' ' 
and  in  many  ways  shows  a  loving  concern  for  her, 
but  nowhere  in  the  play  does  she  show  any  such  feel- 
ing toward  him. 

She  lacks  the  mother-heart  —  the  one  great  indica- 
tion of  womanliness — the  heart  that  prizes  the  child 
above  all  other  earthly  possessions.  She  would  kill 
her  infant,  dash  its  brains  against  a  wall,  merely  be- 
cause she  had  vowed  to  do  so : 

I  have  given  suck,  and  know 
How  tender  'tis  to  love  the  babe  that  milks  me: 
I  would,  while  it  was  smihng  in  my  face, 
Have  pluck'd  my  nipple  from  its  boneless  gums, 
And  dash'd  the  brains  out,  had  I  so  sworn  as  you 
Have  done  to  this.^® 

Is  this  the  language  of  a  woman,  a  mother?  Nay,  a 
fiend  rather.  A  womanly  woman  could  not  have  even 
imagined  doing  such  a  thing,  could  not  have  voiced 
such  a  thought,  would  not  have  possessed  a  brain 
capable  of  giving  birth  to  such  a  horrible  idea.  No, 
Lady  Macbeth  was  devoid  of  love  of  husband  and 
love  of  child.  This  being  the  case,  how  can  she  be 
considered  as  possessing  the  qualities  of  a  woman? 

She  even  goes  so  far  as  to  threaten  her  husband 
with  a  withdrawal  of  what  she  terms  her  love  if  he 
refuses  to  carry  out  the  proposed  plan  to  remove 
Duncan  and  unlawfully  secure  the  crown  of  Scotland 
to  themselves: 

From  this  time, 
Such  I  account  thy  love.     Art  thou  afeard 
To  be  the  same  in  thine  own  act  and  valor, 
As  thou  art  in  desire?^' 

2  5 Act  I.   Scene  VII. 
«•  Ibid. 

[42] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

Could  anything  be  more  base  than  for  a  wife  to 
threaten  to  divorce  her  husband  from  her  person 
unless  he  does  what  she  desires,  even  though  his  con- 
science tells  him  that  to  comply  with  her  request  would 
be  a  sin  or  a  crime?  Would  a  womanly  woman  so 
debase  her  womanhood  as  to  hold  her  love  over  her 
husband  as  a  club  to  enforce  requests?  Well  Lady 
Macbeth  knows  that  no  weapon  is  sharper  than  a 
woman's  envenomed  tongue,  therefore  she  sneers  at 
Macbeth  and  goads  him  to  a  compliance  with  her 
demands.  Here  is  one  of  the  strongest  bits  of  evidence 
in  the  whole  play  as  to  the  true  character  of  Lady 
Macbeth,  a  piece  of  evidence  passed  over  by  those 
who  proclaim  the  womanliness  of  her  character  but 
of  such  a  nature  that,  like  Banquo's  ghost,  it  will  not 
down.  Surely,  Lady  Macbeth  cannot  be  termed  a 
woman  who  was  a  wife  for  love's  sake. 

She  gave  no  consideration  to  the  performance  of 
the  main  duty  of  a  hostess — the  welfare  of  the  guest. 
As  soon  as  she  learns  of  the  intended  visit  of  Duncan 
to  her  castle  she  decrees  that  he  shall  die  there,  and 
even  plans  on  committing  the  deed  of  murder  herself. 
She  prays  to  the  powers  of  darkness  to  take  from  her 
that  which  she  does  not  possess — womanly  qualities. 
She  implores  them  to  unsex  her,  little  thinking  that 
by  giving  utterance  to  such  a  prayer,  harboring  such 
thoughts,  she  had  unsexed  herself.  Let  her  tell  the 
story  in  her  own  words : 

Come,  you  spirits 
That  tend  on  mortal  thoughts,  unsex  me  here, 
And  fill  me,  from  the  crown  to  the  toe,  top-full 
Of  direst  cruelty!  make  thick  my  blood, 

[43] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Stop  up  the  access  and  passage  to  remorse; 
That  no  compunctious  visitings  of  nature 
Shake  my  fell  purpose,  nor  keep  peace  between 
The  effect  and  it!    Come  to  my  woman's  breasts 
And  take  my  milk  for  gall,  you  murdering  ministers, 
Wherever  in  your  sightless  substances 
You  wait  on  nature's  mischief!    Come,  thick  night. 
And  pall  thee  in  the  dunnest  smoke  of  hell! 
That  my  keen  knife  see  not  the  wound  it  makes. 
Nor  heaven  peep  through  the  blanket  of  the  dark, 
To  cry,  "Hold,  Hold!"^' 

Is  not  this  a  horrible,  a  fiendish  passage?  Could  a 
human  being  express  such  thoughts  without  possess- 
ing attributes  that  would  cause  them  to  take  voice? 
Assuredly  no.  The  trait  must  be  in  the  character 
before  the  thought,  the  wish,  can  enter  the  brain. 
After  such  evidence,  can  it  be  said  that  Lady  Macbeth 
is  anything  else  than  absolutely  bad?  Perhaps  it 
may  be  thought  that  she  is  merely  playing  a  part, 
merely  trying  to  make  herself  believe  that  she  is  this 
stern-visaged,  unsexed  creature.  Very  well,  let  us 
seek  further  evidence  regarding  the  truth  of  the  pic- 
ture she  draws  of  herself.  She  convinces  her  hus- 
band of  its  truth,  and  he  was  well  informed  by  close 
association  as  to  her  character.  After  she  has  outlined 
to  Macbeth  her  plan  for  disposing  of  Duncan  and 
turning  suspicion  from  themselves,  he  says : 

Bring  forth  men-children  only; 
For  thy  undaunted  mettle  should  compose 
Nothing  but  males.** 

Thus  does  Macbeth  clearly  express  his  conviction  that 
there  is  nothing  feminine  in  her  nature  and  that  there- 

2 ''Act  I.  Scene  V. 
2  8 Act  I.  Scene  VII. 

[44] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

fore  she  should  bring  forth  nothing  but  males  because 
the  attributes  she  displays  are  unsuited  to  the  feminine 
nature.  After  this  can  it  be  said  that  Lady  Macbeth 
is  aught  womanly? 

She  has  no  consideration  for  the  rights  of  others — 
anything  that  stands  between  her  and  her  ..will  must 
be  ruthlessly  cast  aside,  no  matter  what  may  be  the 
suffering  of  the  innocent  impediment.  When  she  de- 
termines that  Duncan  shall  die  she  looks  about  for 
some  one  to  bear  the  blame  for  the  crime  so  that  no 
suspicion  may  rest  upon  herself  and  her  husband. 
Thus  she  plans  it : 

his  two   chamberlains 

Will  I  with  wine  and  wassel  so  convince, 
That  memory,  the  warder  of  the  brain, 
Shall  be  a  fume,  and  the  receipt  of  reason 
A  limbeck  only:    When  in  swinish  sleep 
Their  drenched  natures  lie,  as  in  a  death, 
What  cannot  you  and  I  perform  upon 
The  unguarded  Duncan  ?  What  not  put  upon 
His  spongy  officers,  who  shall  bear  the  guilt 
Of  our  great  quell?'" 

Only  once  in  the  entire  play  does  Lady  Macbeth 's 
conscience  make  itself  known  during  her  waking 
hours.  The  solitary  instance  occurring  in  Act  II. 
Scene  II.  where,  on  hearing  a  noise  in  Duncan's  cham- 
ber, she  fears  that  Macbeth  has  failed  in  his  intent 
to  kill  the  king,  she  thinks  aloud : 

Had  he  not  resembled 
My  father  as  he  slept,  I  had  done't. 

This  was  the  voice  of  conscience  speaking  to  her  soul, 
but  she  heeded  it  no  further  than  to  pass  the  doing 

2»Act  I.   Scene  VII. 

[45] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

of  the  deed  of  murder  on  to  her  husband.     Thus  she 

feared  what  she  later  called  "a  painted  devil"  when 

Macbeth  refused  to  look  again  upon  the  face  of  the 

dead  king: 

The  sleeping,  and  the  dead, 
Are  but  as  pictures :   'Tis  the  eye  of  childhood 
That  fears  a  painted  devil/" 

She  would  have  stabbed  the  old  king  to  the  heart  had 
he  not  resembled  her  father.  Conscience  thus  held 
back  the  raised  knife,  just  as  it  forbade  Macbeth  to 
return  to  the  chamber  of  horror. 

It  is  claimed  by  some  that  the  mental  dissolution 
of  Lady  Macbeth  showed  her  to  be  of  such  a  sensa- 
tive,  moral  nature  that  her  mind  broke  under  the  un- 
natural strain  that  was  placed  upon  it  through  her 
entrance  upon  the  course  of  evil.  Here,  according 
to  the  text  of  the  play,  they  are  also  wrong.  When 
Macebeth  is  about  the  murder  of  Duncan,  and  a  noise 
is  heard  within,  she  cries: 

Alack!   I  am  afraid  they  have  awak'd. 

And  'tis  not  done: — the  attempt,  and  not  the  deed, 

Confounds  us."*^ 

It  was  the  fear  of  failure,  not  sorrow  for  the  murder, 
that  troubled  her.  So  also,  it  was  the  failure  to 
successfully  seize  and  hold  the  crown,  and  not  re- 
morse for  sin,  that  caused  her  mind  to  give  way.  It 
was  because  the  guilty  pair  failed  to  get  upon  the 
firm  ground  of  security,  but  wallowed  in  the  mire 
of  suspicion  and  danger,  that  Lady  Macbeth  was 
troubled  unto  death.    It  will  be  observed,  though,  that 


^'"Act  II.   Scene  II. 
^  1  Ibid. 


[46] 


TYPES    OF    CHARACTERS 

it  was  only  when  she  was  not  herself,  when  she  was 
in  the  foreign  land  of  sleep,  that  her  thoughts  trou- 
bled her.  When  awake,  she  had  that  power  of  will 
that  made  her  master  of  herself;  but  when  asleep, 
when  that  will  no  longer  existed,  she  felt  all  the  pangs 
of  a  sleeping  conscience  awakened  by  the  bodily  sleep, 
and  then  she  suffered  the  tortures  of  the  damned  soul, 
staggering  under  its  load  of  unrepented  sin,  and  mad- 
ness was  the  logical  result.  Had  she  not  stifled  the 
cry  of  her  conscience  during  the  day,  had  she  given 
it  voice  by  repenting  her  crimes,  it  would  not  have 
haunted  her  at  night  and  enforced  disclosure  even 
against  her  knowledge  of  disclosing  it. 

Lady  Macbeth  is  one  of  the  most  immoral  characters 
in  Shakespeare — not  immoral  physically,  but  devoid 
of  morality  spiritually.  Her  body  was  pure,  but  her 
mind  was  as  black  as  the  impenetrable  night.  Hers 
was  not  of  the  same  class  of  immorality  to  which 
Regan 's  and  Goneril  's  belonged,  but  it  was  as  baneful 
to  herself  and  far  more  dangerous  to  others.  Hers 
was  a  spiritual  illness,  not  springing,  as  did  Regan's 
and  Goneril's,  from  the  lusts  of  the  body,  but  from 
an  inherent  baseness  of  the  mind.  She  had  the  power 
to  live  a  pure  and  noble  life,  to  make  others  happy 
and  to  be  happy  herself;  but  she  chose  the  baser 
part;  she  allowed  selfishness  to  be  her  guide,  and  she 
became  a  malign  influence,  poisoning  all  that  she 
touched.  In  many  respects  she  resembled  lago.  Both 
were  intellectually  great,  both  despised  all  power  but 
that  of  the  intellect,  both  misdirected  their  tremendous 
mental  forces,  and  both  came  to  a  wretched  end.    Pity 

[47] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

we  can  feel  for  one  who  goes  astray  through  love,  but 
nothing  else  than  contempt  and  detestation  should  be 
felf  for  those  who  go  astray  through  selfishness.  This 
was  the  besetting  sin  of  both  lago  and  Lady  Macbeth, 
and  both  justly  suffered  because  of  it. 

Lady  Macbeth  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  Shakespeare 's 
marvelous  creations,  and  ranks  with  those  master 
characters  of  the  other  sex,  Hamlet,  Othello,  Macbeth, 
and  Lear.  In  the  estimation  of  the  author,  it  is  the 
greatest  of  all  his  female  characters.  Not  great,  like 
some,  in  goodness;  not  great  merely  in  its  badness; 
but  great  because  of  the  insight  it  gives  to  the  work- 
ings of  the  human  heart  and  brain,  and  its  absolute 
truth  to  nature. 


[48] 


CHAPTER  III 

Classes  of  Shakespeare's  Plays 

WHAT  a  mine  of  literary  wealth  we  possess  in 
the  plays  of  Shakespeare!  Blot  out  these 
dramatic  poems  and  a  greater  gap  would  be  made 
in  literature  than  by  the  destruction  of  all  else 
purely  dramatic  in  character  that  has  been  written 
in  the  English  language.  Any  one  of  his  four  great 
tragedies,  Othello,  Hamlet,  Lear  and  Macbeth, 
represents  more  to  English  literature  than  the  entire 
production  of  any  other  dramatic  author.  His 
works  have  entered  into  the  very  being  of  most  sub- 
sequent writers  and  made  an  impression  on  Litera- 
ture second  to  that  of  only  one  other  work — the 
Bible.  The  reason  that  the  influence  of  these  plays 
has  been  so  far  reaching  is  that  they  are  true  to 
Nature.  Shakespeare's  descriptions  of  scenery,  his 
pictures  of  plant  and  animal  life,  analyses  of  the 
mind  and  heart  of  man  are  so  vivid,  so  true,  and  so 
masterful  as  to  give  them  the  force  of  reality.  This 
is  why  his  plays  appeal  to  men  of  all  lands  and  of  all 
ages,  and  stand  as  the  monumental  intellectual  pro- 
duction of  the  English  race.  He  had  no  fixed  mode 
of  procedure,  he  was  governed  by  no  set  rules.  He 
took  the  dust  of  other  writers,  breathed  into  it  the 
breath  of  his  genius  and  it  became  a  living  thing. 
He  was  indebted   to   French,    Italian    and   English 

[49] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

authors  for  his  plots  and  most  of  his  characters. 
When  the  matter  came  to  his  hands  it  was  nothing 
more  than  material ;  but  when  it  passed  out  of  them, 
it  was  a  magnificent  edifice.  He  was  the  greatest 
literary  borrower  of  all  times  but  he  paid  his  debts 
with  usurious  interest.  Whatever  he  took  he 
returned  a  hundred  fold,  and  whatever  he  touched 
he  awakened  to  greater  life.  Whenever  the  English 
language  failed  to  contain  words  expressive  of  his 
thoughts  he  created  them,  and  thus  he  became  pos- 
sessed of  a  vocabulary  of  over  fifteen  thousand 
words,  larger  by  far  than  that  used  by  any  other 
writer.  In  the  handling  of  this  immense  number  of 
words  he  was  a  magician,  juggling  with  them  in  a 
most  charming  and  marvelous  manner,  arranging 
them  in  so  masterful  a  way  as  to  make  his  phrases 
and  sentences  pregnant  with  the  life  of  his  thought. 
This  wonderful  arrangement  of  words  is  one  of  the 
main  beauties  of  Shakespeare.  In  him  it  is  the  per- 
fection of  art,  because  nowhere  in  his  work  is  the 
art  apparent,  nowhere  does  it  intrude  between  the 
reader  and  the  thought.  This  ability  to  preserve 
the  thought  in  spite  of  the  multiplicity  of  words  that 
encase  them,  is  one  of  the  marvels  of  Shakespeare. 
He  used  words  as  a  means  and  not  as  an  end.  He 
employed  them  to  convey  his  ideas  and  not  to  dis- 
play the  extent  of  his  vocabulary.  Here  is  a  striking 
example : 

Therefore,  to  be  possess'd  with  double  pomp, 
To  guard  a  title  that  was  rich  before, 
To  guild  refined  gold,  to  paint  the  lily, 

[50] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S    PLAYS 

To  throw  a  perfume  on  the  violet, 

To  smooth  the  ice,  or  add  another  hue 

Unto  the  rainbow,  or  with  taper-light 

To  seek  the  beauteous  eye  of  heaven  to  garnish. 

Is  wasteful  and  ridiculous  excess/ 

One  who  could  so  plainly  perceive  the  futility  of  the 
excessive  use  of  any  means  as  to  pen  the  above  senti- 
ment, would  never  have  used  words  for  the  mere 
sake  of  using  them. 

There  were  no  "periods''  in  Shakespeare's  art 
such  as  the  "immature,"  "maturing,"  and  "ma- 
tured." His  was  a  steady  climb  from  the  first  to  the 
last,  showing  a  broadening  and  a  strengthening  of 
his  mental  powers  that  were  gradual  and  sure,  and 
his  progress  cannot  be  confined  within  periods. 

Commencing  his  education  at  the  Parish  school  at 
Stratford,  he  continued  it  by  a  communion  with 
Nature  along  the  banks  of  the  Avon  and  through  the 
fields  of  Warwickshire,  and  completed  it  by  a  study 
of  mankind  in  the  city  of  London.  In  addition  to 
this,  he  was  an  omnivorous  reader,  devouring  all  the 
important  printed  matter  of  the  day,  whether  it  per- 
tained to  his  own  land  or  those  foreign  climes  t?iat 
the  navigators  of  England  were  then  bringing  to  the 
light  of  civilization.  His  connection  with  the  theatre 
placed  in  his  hands  the  productions  of  other  dram- 
atists, and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  take  suggestions 
from  these  works  any  more  than  he  did  from  the 
stories  of  Holinshed's  Chronicles.  And  if  Greene 
and  others  are  correct  in  their  statements,  he  took 
more  than  suggestions.     Thus  it  was,  from  Nature, 

i"King  John,"    Act  IV.   Scene  II. 

[51] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

from  man,  from  books,  from  his  feUow  dramatists, 
that  Shakespeare  gained  his  education,  and  it  is 
because  his  training  was  so  diversified  and  the 
sources  of  his  knowledge  so  many,  that  he  was  able 
to  produce  his  wonderful  plays.  A  mere  bookworm 
could  not  have  done  the  work  of  Shakespeare,  nor 
could  a  mere  child  of  Nature,  but  it  was  a  blending 
of  the  two  that  produced  the  master  playwright. 

"We  do  not  possess  a  single  manuscript  of  Shake- 
speare's, nor  any  printed  form  of  any  play  that  is 
known  to  have  received  his  sanction,  consequently 
it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  his  plays  have  come 
down  to  us  in  a  very  incomplete  and  defective  form. 
Much  credit  is  due  the  able  and  patient  scholars  who 
compared  and  arranged  the  material  that  has 
reached  us,  and  who  have  given  us  Shakespeare  as 
we  know  him  today. 

The  original  printed  copies  are,  as  a  rule,  full  of 
typographical  errors,  and  where  there  are  several 
diiferent  printings  of  a  play  they  often  disagree  in 
many  important  particulars.  In  some,  the  text  dif- 
fers materially;  while  in  others,  speeches,  and  even 
entire  scenes,  are  omitted.  In  only  a  few  are  the 
acts  and  scenes  clearly  marked. 

Some  of  the  plays  were  printed  in  quarto  pam- 
phlet form  either  from  incomplete  copies  obtained  by 
the  actors  or  from  manuscripts  made  by  persons  who 
attended  the  performances  and  took  down  the  mat- 
ter as  best  they  could.  The  First  Folio  gives  what  pur- 
ports to  be  "all  his  comedies,  histories,  and  trage- 
dies, truly  set  forth  according  to  their  first  original. ' ' 

[52] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

This  collection  of  Shakespeare's  plays  was  edited  by 
his  fellow  actors  Heminge  and  Condell,  and  was  is- 
sued in  1623. 

The  First  Folio  contains  fourteen  plays  that  are 
set  down  as  comedies,  ten  that  are  listed  as  histories, 
and  twelve  that  are  grouped  as  tragedies,  making  a 
total  of  thirty-six  plays  ascribed  to  Shakespeare  by 
Heminge  and  Condell,  being  one  less  than  the  num- 
ber allotted  him  by  most  modern  editors.  Pericles, 
Prince  of  Tyre,  is  the  tragedy  omitted  in  The  First 
Folio. 

Shakespeare's  plays  are  divided  into  three  dis- 
tinct classes :  tragedies,  comedies  and  histories.  This 
is  the  classification  as  used  in  The  First  Folio,  and  as 
there  is  no  good  reason  for  departing  from  it,  it  will 
be  followed  here.  Of  the  tragedies,  Othello,  Hamlet, 
Lear,  and  Macbeth  will  be  discussed ;  of  the  com- 
edies. As  You  Like  It,  Twelfth  Night,  and  Much  Ado 
About  Nothing;  of  the  histories,  Henry  V.,  thus 
presenting  to  the  consideration  of  students  charac- 
teristic types  of  all  Shakespeare's  plays. 

The  Tragedy  of  Othello  first  appeared  in  quarto 
form  in  1622;  was  among  the  collection  of  plays  as 
issued  by  Heminge  and  Condell  in  1623 ;  was  again 
printed  in  quarto  form  in  1630;  and  is  included 
among  the  plays  in  The  Second  Folio  of  1632,  which 
is  practically  a  reprint  of  The  First  Folio.  These 
several  versions  of  the  same  play  differ  from  each 
other,  some  slightly,  others  to  a  considerable  extent. 
That  of  The  First  Folio  is  the  most  complete,  con- 
taining over  a  hundred  and  fifty  lines  that  are  want- 

[53] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

ing  in  the  first  quarto,  but  some  few  lines  absent  in 
the  folio  are  supplied  by  this  quarto.  The  play  was 
not  printed  during  its  author's  lifetime,  and  there 
is  nothing  to  prove  that  any  of  the  printed  copies  is 
strictly  authentic,  further  than  the  fact  that 
Heminge  and  Condell  are  supposed  by  some  editors 
to  have  had  access  to  the  author's  manuscripts  of 
such  plays  as  they  included  in  The  First  Folio.  This 
again  is  merely  conjecture,  there  being  no  legal  evi- 
dence to  sustain  it,  and  the  fact  that  this  folio  is  full 
of  errors  and  blemishes  would  tend  to  disprove  the 
supposition. 

The  Tragedy  of  Hamlet  first  appeared  in  quarto 
form  in  1603.  This  no  doubt  was  printed  from  notes 
taken  down  during  the  performance  of  the  play  and 
from  memory,  as  it  is  imperfect  in  many  ways.  In 
1604  a  second  quarto  was  issued,  a  great  improve- 
ment over  the  first,  which  is  today  our  main  author- 
ity for  the  text  of  this  wonderful  play.  In  The  First 
Folio  it  appears  without  arrangement  into  scenes 
and  acts,  many  of  the  best  portions  are  omitted,  and 
the  whole  play  is  in  a  garbled  state,  indicating  clear- 
ly that  in  this  particular  instance  Heminge  and 
Condell  could  not  have  had  access  to  Shakespeare's 
manuscripts. 

The  Tragedy  of  Lear  is  supposed  to  have  been 
written  in  1606.  It  was  first  printed  in  1608  and 
again  issued  the  same  year.  Both  issues  were  in 
quarto  form,  and  both  were  full  of  errors  and  poorly 
printed.  It  appeared  in  The  First  Folio  in  1623  and 
again  in  quarto  form  in  1655. 

[54] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

The  text  of  The  Tragedy  of  Macbeth  as  it  ap- 
peared originally  in  The  First  Folio  is  wonderfully 
free  from  errors.  The  acts  and  scenes  are  uniform- 
ly arranged,  the  play  being  in  every  way  complete. 
In  so  perfect  a  form  does  this  play  come  down  to  us 
as  to  appear  to  have  been  revised  and  arranged  for 
publication  by  the  hand  of  the  Dramatist  himself. 

The  comedy  of  As  You  Like  It  was  first  printed, 
so  far  as  is  known,  in  The  First  Folio,  although  it 
is  supposed  to  have  been  written  in  1599.  The  struc- 
tural work  is  faulty,  indicating  either  haste  or  care- 
lessness on  the  Dramatist's  part. 

Twelfth  Night  was  written  about  the  year  1600, 
and  originally  appeared  in  The  First  Folio.  The 
play  is  made  up  of  two  distinct  parts,  comic  and 
serious.  There  are,  besides  the  main  story  of 
Viola's  love  for  the  Duke,  three  stories:  (1)  Olivia 
and  the  Duke;  (2)  Viola  and  Sebastian;  (3)  Mal- 
volio,  and  the  fun  of  which  he  is  the  center. 

Much  Ado  About  Nothing  is  supposed  to  have 
been  written  in  1599.  It  was  first  printed  in  quarto 
form  in  1600.  The  text  is  remarkably  accurate,  but 
neither  the  scenes  nor  acts  are  marked.  It  appears 
in  The  First  Folio  much  as  it  is  in  the  quarto,  except 
that  the  acts  are  marked  and  there  are  a  few  unim- 
portant variations  in  the  text. 

The  Life  of  Henry  the  Fifth,  as  it  is  styled  in  The 
First  Folio,  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  in 
1598.  The  earliest  known  edition  of  the  play  ap- 
peared in  1600.  This  edition  was  reprinted  in  1602 
and  1608.    All  these  editions  were  in  quarto  form. 

[55] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

In  the  folio  of  1623  it  differs  materially  from  the 
quartos,  being  fully  twice  as  long, 

Shakespeare's  genius  is  displayed  best  by  his  trag- 
edies. As  plays,  the  comedies  are  not  in  the  same 
class  with  the  tragedies.  Three  of  the  comedies,  by 
general  agreement  of  critics,  stand  out  pre-emi- 
nently from  the  others:  Much  Ado  About  Nothing, 
Twefth  Night,  and  As  You  Like  It.  While  The  Tem- 
pest and  A  Winter's  Tale  are  both  generally  classed 
as  comedies,  they  are  considered  by  some  editors  as 
not  distinctly  so,  being  classed  by  them  as  romantic 
dramas,  but  as  the  principal  characters  in  both 
plays  succeed  and  the  plays  have  a  happy  ending, 
they  are  properly  considered  comedies.  With  the 
exception  of  The  Tempest,  all  the  comedies  are  de- 
ficient in  plot  and  construction,  not  being  compar- 
able in  these  respects  with  the  principal  tragedies, 
but  they  all  contain  wonderful  examples  of  the 
Dramatist's  art  in  the  delineation  of  the  comic  char- 
acters. 

Shakespeare  was  at  his  best  when  he  depicted 
great  things  and  events  in  man  and  nature.  His  was 
an  exceptional  talent  and  it  required  unusual  events 
for  its  display  in  its  grandest  and  highest  form. 
This  requirement  was  met  in  depicting  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  human  mind  in  Hamlet,  Macbeth  and 
Lear,  not  only  in  the  development  of  the  main  char- 
acter in  each  play  but  in  all  those  minor  ones  that 
the  play  included,  and  in  the  construction  of  the 
play  itself.  But  when  it  came  to  telling  the  stories 
depicting  the  sprightliness  of  Rosalind,  the  timidity 

[56] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

of  Viola,  and  the  wit  of  Beatrice,  he  appears  to  have 
been  guilty  of  a  carelessness  not  to  be  found  in  his 
serious  dramas.  Not  that  the  characters  are  not 
well  drawn — for  they  are,  in  their  way,  as  perfect 
as  any  of  the  tragic  characters — but  the  plays  them- 
selves are  founded  on  weaker  foundations,  the  plots 
being  developed  with  less  care  and  the  structural 
work  not  so  masterfully  put  together.  Action  is 
less  apparent  in  the  comedies  than  in  the  tragedies. 
In  the  comedies,  more  depends  on  the  wit  and 
sprightliness  of  the  dialogue  than  on  the  movement 
of  the  story,  the  merriment  of  many  of  the  scenes 
depending  on  the  quaintness  of  individual  charac- 
ters such  as  Dogberry,  whose  comedy  element  is 
depicted  by  words  and  not  by  action.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  tragedies  stand  upon  massive  foundations, 
the  plots  are  deep  and  the  development  moves  along 
in  an  impressive,  strong  and  sure  manner.  It  is  only 
as  plays  that  the  comedies  are  weaker  than  the 
tragedies,  for  as  far  as  the  limning  of  the  characters 
is  concerned  there  is  not  much  choice  between  Rosa- 
lind and  Desdemona,  Viola  and  Ophelia,  Beatrice  and 
Cordelia.  But  as  plays,  there  is  all  the  difference  in 
the  world  between  As  You  Like  It  and  Othello, 
Twelfth  Night  and  Hamlet,  Much  Ado  About  Noth- 
ing and  Lear.  This  difference,  so  far  as  their  value 
as  plays  is  concerned,  consists  in  the  superiority  of 
the  structural  work  of  the  tragedies  over  that  of  the 
comedies. 

The  stories  of  all  the  comedies  were  borrowed  by 
Shakespeare  but  the   characters  are  his  own.     In 

[57] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

every  instance  the  plots  are  weak  but  the  characters 
wondrous  in  their  lifelike  portraiture.  In  the  trag- 
edies, also,  the  Dramatist  drew  from  outside  sources, 
but  the  characters  that  give  them  their  form  and  life 
were  the  children  of  his  own  brain.  Therefore  we 
see  that  what  is  truly  great  in  the  plays  of  Shake- 
speare was  original  with  him.  His  characters  pass 
through  the  plays  as  do  men  and  women  in  life,  and 
it  is  the  lifelike  portrayal  of  the  traits  of  human 
beings  in  the  characters  of  the  stage  that  gives  his 
plays  their  everlasting  life.  It  is  Hamlet,  Othello, 
Lear  and  Macbeth  who  move  us ;  it  is  Beatrice,  Rosa- 
lind and  Viola  whom  we  love;  it  is  Harry  of  Mon- 
mouth who  thrills  us,  while  the  tragedies  and  com- 
edians are  only  the  bodies  that  contain  the  souls  of 
these  immortal  characters. 

The  Tragedy  of  Othello 

What  suggested  the  idea  of  Othello  to  the  mind 
of  Shakespeare  appears  to  have  been  a  work  by  the 
Italian  novelist,  Giraldi  Cinthio,  entitled  II  Moro  Di 
Venezia.  It  is  not  known  whether  Shakespeare 
possessed  sufficient  knowledge  of  Italian  to  enable 
him  to  read  the  novel  in  the  original  tongue  or 
whether  there  was  an  English  translation  of  it  previ- 
ous to  the  writing  of  his  Tragedy.  It  is  possible  that 
a  play  on  the  same  subject  by  another  author  pre- 
ceded that  of  Shakespeare's  Othello,  but  as  this  is 
mere  surmise  there  is  no  use  in  following  it  further. 

The  plot  is  complex,  being  made  up  of  several 

[58] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

separate  actions  which,  however,  finally  blend  into 
the  main  one — that  of  the  love  and  death  of  Othello 
and  Desdemona.  The  other  sections,  or,  as  they 
might  better  be  termed,  threads,  consist  of  (1)  the 
story  of  Bianca  and  Cassio;  (2)  Roderigo's  attach- 
ment for  Desdemona;  (3)  lago's  compact  with  Rod- 
erigo;  (4)  lago's  scheming  to  get  Cassio 's  place;  (5) 
lago's  plan  to  bring  about  the  death  of  Cassio;  (6) 
lago's  intrigue  to  separate  Othello  and  Desdemona. 
These  secondary  stories,  however,  all  pertain  to  the 
main  one,  flowing  into  it  as  do  many  small  streams 
into  a  larger  one. 

The  Tragedy  of  Othello  ranks  as  one  of  Shake- 
speare's masterpieces,  being  placed  by  all  editors  and 
scholars  alongside  Lear,  Hamlet  and  Macbeth.  All 
agree  that  it  is  one  of  the  greatest,  and  some*  claim 
that  it  is  the  greatest,  of  all  Shakespeare's  plays.  It 
certainly  shows  that  it  is  the  work  of  a  master 
hand :  the  style  is  even  and  elegant,  all  its  parts  are 
logical  and  admirably  joined,  and  there  is  unity  of 
action  throughout.  Its  theme  is  purely  domestic,  the 
play  dealing  with  the  love,  marriage,  estrangement, 
and  death  of  Othello  and  Desdemona.  It  holds 
closely  to  the  unity  of  place,  remarkably  so  for  a 
play  by  Shakespeare,  the  action  taking  place  in 
Cyprus,  except  the  first  act  which  is  laid  in  Venice. 
This  slight  transgression  from  the  law  of  unity  of 
place  is  wise,  because  it  shows  the  events  leading 
up  to  the  tragedy  instead  of  having  them  told  by  the 
actors.     Thus  by   breaking    one    law    of   the   play- 

*  "Othello"    is   perhaps   the   greatest   work    in   the   world. 

— T.  B.  Macaulay. 

[59] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON   SHAKESPEARE 

Wright's  art  the  Dramatist  emphasizes  another — 
showing  by  action  instead  of  telling  by  words.  The 
first  act  gives  us  an  insight  into  the  characters  of  the 
principal  personages  of  the  drama  that  could  never 
have  been  gained  unless  we  had  been  admitted  into 
this  close  relationship.  It  was  necessary  to  allow 
lago  and  Desdemona  to  show  their  traits  of  charac- 
ter in  order  that  the  nature  of  Othello  might  be  un- 
derstood and  his  actions  made  to  appear  logical. 
The  reasons  for  Desdemona 's  love  for  the  Moor 
could  not  have  been  made  convincingly  apparent  in 
any  manner  except  by  unfolding  them  to  the  gaze 
of  the  audience  as  the  Dramatist  has  done  in  the 
first  act.  Shakespeare  was  severely  censured  by 
some  critics  for  doing  the  very  thing  that  made  his 
tragedy  so  appealing,  even  Doctor  Johnson  sug- 
gested that  had  the  scene  opened  in  Cyprus,  the 
events  of  the  first  act  being  told  by  the  characters 
from  time  to  time,  the  action  of  the  play  would  have 
been  greatly  improved.  Here  the  learned  Doctor 
certainly  erred,  because  it  would  have  been  neces- 
sary on  several  occasions  to  halt  the  action  of  the 
play  while  some  of  the  facts  were  being  narrated 
by  the  characters,  thus  turning  the  actors  into  ora- 
tors and  making  them  directly  address  the  audience 
—  a  procedure  which  is  against  all  the  laws  of  dra- 
matic art. 

The  pivotal  point  of  the  play,  or  the  center  of  the 
arch,  is  at  the  close  of  the  third  act  when  Othello, 
convinced  of  the  guilt  of  his  wife,  takes  lago  to  his 
heart  and  exclaims,  "Now  art  thou  my  lieutenant." 

[60] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S    PLAYS 

The  play  is  marvelously  well  constructed,  the  plot 
being  one  of  the  best  that  has  ever  been  developed. 
Many  incidents  are  introduced  that  pertain  primarily 
to  other  actions  than  that  of  the  pivotal  one, 
but  they  all  work  into  the  main  structure  as  do  in- 
dividual threads  into  a  piece  of  cloth.  All  the 
several  incidents  are  important  elements  that  lend 
to  the  unfolding  of  the  story.  The  construction  of 
the  Tragedy  of  Othello  required  the  experienced 
actor's  trained  hand  as  well  as  that  of  the  able 
writer  and  thinker. 

The  characters  are  all  strikingly  dissimilar,  won- 
derful effects  being  produced  by  setting  one  type 
against  another;  as,  Desdemona  and  Emelia,  and 
Othello  and  lago.  It  delineates  marvelously  the 
workings  of  the  mental  faculties  and  analyzes 
keenly  the  feelings  of  the  heart.  Othello  is  in  every 
respect  a  remarkable  production  of  the  dramatist's 
art,  and  had  Shakespeare  written  nothing  else,  this 
one  play  would  have  given  him  literary  immortality. 

The  Tragedy  of  Hamlet 

The  story  that  is  the  foundation  of  this  wonderful 
creation  of  Shakespeare's  genius  is  ancient,  having 
been  known  to  the  people  of  Iceland  for  many  cen- 
turies before  the  magic  pen  of  Shakespeare  made  it 
known  to  the  civilized  world.  It  is  presumed  that 
the  Dramatist  obtained  his  information  regarding 
it  after  it  had  passed  thr-^ugh  many  forms  and 
finally  appeared  in  the  works  of  the  French  author, 

[61] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Francis  de  Belleforest.  Whether  he  took  it  directly 
from  the  French  or  from  an  English  translation  is 
not  known.  The  play,  however,  indicates  that  its 
source  was  that  of  the  story  as  related  by  Belle- 
forest  in  his  Histoires  Tragiques,  who,  in  his  turn, 
had  taken  it  from  the  Danish  author  Saxo  Gram- 
maticus,  who  lived  in  the  early  period  of  the  thir- 
teenth century,  and  drew  many  of  his  stories  from 
the  sagas  of  Iceland. 

The  story  as  narrated  by  these  men  is  one  of 
rapine,  murder  and  lust.  It  is  horrible  and  barbar- 
ous in  the  extreme,  without  a  suggestion  of  romance. 
As  it  passed  through  the  many  languages  it  im- 
proved little  in  narrative  or  diction  until  Shake- 
speare incorporated  it  into  his  splendid  dramatic 
poem.  He  is  indebted  to  the  early  authors  for  noth- 
ing more  than  the  plain  facts,  and  these  he  softened 
and  subdued  to  his  purpose. 

The  plot  is  a  simple  one,  dealing,  as  it  does,  solely 
with  the  story  of  Hamlet.  Every  action  revolves 
around  him  and  all  incidents  point  particularly  to 
him.  There  is  nothing  in  the  plot  to  detract  in  the 
slightest  from  the  one  story. 

Two  parts  are  plainly  discernable  to  this  play: 
contemplation  and  action.  The  author  cannot  agree 
with  those  who  claim  that  in  it  "philosophy  over- 
flows all  bounds,  and  sweeps  onward  unchecked.'"* 
True,  it  is  a  tragedy  of  thought,  but  it  is  also  a 
'tragedy  of  action.  "Were  this  not  the  ease  it  could 
not  have  proceeded  from  the  brain  of  Shakespeare, 

*  Hudson's    Introduction   to    "The   Tragedy   of   Hamlet." 

[62] 


CLASSES    OP    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

for  all  his  plays  possess  this  great  requisite  that 
constitutes  a  literary  composition  a  play.  There  is 
action  all  through  the  tragedy,  from  the  appearance 
of  the  Ghost  to  the  men  on  watch  until  the  soul  of 
Hamlet  takes  its  flight  and  rejoins  that  of  his 
revered  father.  This  phase  of  the  subject  is  dealt 
with  at  length  in  the  analysis  of  the  character  ot 
Hamlet,  so  we  will  not  linger  on  it  here. 

There  are  more  than  twenty  characters  in  the 
play,  all  drawn  in  a  masterful  manner.  Laertes  and 
Horatio  are  well  contrasted  —  one  being  a  social  fa- 
vorite with  many  vices,  the  other  an  all-round  manly 
man.  ^ng  Claudius  in  endeavoring  to  bring  about 
the  death  of  Hamlet  insures  his  own  ruin,  and  the 
successive  steps  leading  to  this  are  strongly  built. 
Polonius,  a  man  trained  in  diplomacy,  one  on  whom 
two  kings  depended,  is  a  sneak  and  a  babbler  who 
is  finally  caught  in  his  trickery  and  brought  to  an 
account.  Queen  Gertrude,  a  mixture  of  goodness 
and  baseness,  of  loyalty  and  deceit,  who  is  bad  be- 
cause she  is  weak  and  not  from  any  liking  she  has 
for  evil  itself,  finally  awakens  to  the  villainy  of 
Claudius  and  repents  her  sins.  Ophelia  is  a  charac- 
ter of  sweetness,  one  who  loved  fondly  but  without 
strength,  one  controlled  by  the  minds  of  others  and 
not  bj^  the  consciousness  of  duty  to  herself  and  her 
lover,  one  naturally  constituted  to  rely  on  a  pro- 
tector and  not  on  herself.  Therefore,  when  left 
alone,  she  sinks  under  the  burden  of  hor  sorrows 
and  comes  to  an  untimely  but  logical  endf  All  these 
characters  are  deftly  painted,  and  by  tkeir  truth  to 

[63] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Nature  and  appropriateness  to  the  purpose  of  the 
story  they  give  the  tragedy  an  atmosphere  of  reality, 
despite  the  fact  that  the  story  itself,  with  its  Ghost 
and  the  brooding  melancholy  of  its  principal  char- 
acter, is,  in  the  main,  imaginative. 

Hamlet  is  the  soul  of  the  tragedy,  not  merely 
because  of  the  many  lines  he  has  to  speak  and  the 
length  of  time  that  he  occupies  the  stage,  but  for  the 
reason  that  he  is  continuously  the  subject  of  the 
conversation  of  the  other  characters  and  thus  kept 
ever  before  the  minds  of  the  auditors.  He  is  almost 
as  much  the  object  of  attention  when  off  the  stage 
as  he  is  when  on,  the  creation  of  interest  in  this  char- 
acter being  one  of  the  marked  traits  of  genius  as 
shown  to  us  by  the  Dramatist. 

The  versification  is  excellent  throughout,  some  of 
the  passages,  such  as  Hamlet's  remarks  to  Horatio, 
"Nay,  do  not  think  I  flatter,"  (Act  III.  Scene  II.), 
and  the  famous  soliloquy,  "To  be  or  not  to  be"  (Act 
III.  Scene  I.)  being  splendid  specimens  of  verse,  while 
the  prose  matter  in  the  speech  commencing  ' '  I  will  tell 
you  why"  (Act  II.  Scene  II.),  is  animated  with  the 
very  spirit  of  poetry.  Nothing  more  poetical  than  this 
passage  is  anywhere  to  be  found. 

The  play  reaches  its  climax,  the  center  of  its 
development,  in  Act  III.,  at  the  moment  when  King 
Claudius  betrays  his  guilt,  being  brought  to  this 
betrayal  by  witnessing  the  play  as  arranged  by 
Hamlet  for  the  special  purpose  of  unmasking  the 
King.  From  the  opening  of  the  tragedy  Hamlet  has 
suspected  that  all  is  not  well.     This  suspicion  is 

[64] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S    PLAYS 

strengthened  by  the  Ghost,  and  it  is  confirmed  by 
the  behavior  of  Claudius.  Here  we  have  the  upward 
tendency  of  the  plot :  the  first  half  of  the  arch.  Now 
commences  the  bringing  about  of  the  circumstances 
that  shall  lead  to  the  fulfilment  of  Hamlet's  vow  to 
the  Ghost,  the  punishment  of  Claudius.  Here  begins 
the  unravelling  of  the  plot:  the  other  half  of  the 
arch.  Thus  in  the  development  of  the  tragedy  is 
plainly  discerned  the  arch-like  form  of  construction 
that  is  common  to  the  works  of  Shakespeare. 

The  Tragedy  of  King  Lear 

The  first  act  of  this  play  is  a  masterful  one,  as  are 
the  great  majority  of  Shakespeare's  first  acts.  It 
opens  with  a  conversation  between  Kent  and  Gloster 
which  immediately  suggests  to  the  reader  the  story 
upon  which  the  play  is  founded,  and  introduces 
three  of  the  important  characters.  This  first  act 
is  like  a  premise  upon  which  an  argument  is 
founded,  conveying,  as  it  does,  an  insight  into  the 
many  characters  who  have  the  weaving  of  the  plot 
in  their  hands.  Soon  after  the  rise  of  the  curtain 
the  all-important  character  is  presented,  surrounded 
by  the  group  which  is  to  fashion  the  tale.  The  first 
scene  of  this  awful  tragedy  makes  known  the  char- 
acteristics of  all  the  persons  represented,  no  mask 
being  thick  enough  to  keep  their  true  characters 
from  being  known.  The  foolish,  stubborn  strength 
of  Lear,  the  bluntness  of  Kent,  the  deceitfulness  of 
Goneril  and  Regan,  the  truthful  firmness  of  Cordelia 

[65] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

are  all  made  clear,  and  thus  are  sufficient  reasons 
furnished  for  what  transpires  in  the  play.  It  is  this 
early  insight  into  the  characters  permitted  the 
reader  that  makes  the  outcome  of  the  tragedy  so 
logical.  Such  a  vain,  stubborn  (not  strong)  char- 
acter as  Lear  could  not  help  foolishly  parting  with 
his  sovereign  powers.  He  must  ruthlessly  and 
remorselessly  turn  his  hatred  and  anger  upon  his 
child  because  she  showed  a  trait  in  her  character 
so  like  one  possessed  by  her  father,  trusting  to  the 
breathy  protestations  of  his-  two  other  daughters ; 
and  after  they  had  cast  him  out  (as  previously  he 
had  without  cause  banished  his  youngest  child  from 
his  heart  and  home),  turning  on  them  in  such  awful 
anger  and  cursing  them  so  horribly  that  the  reader 
or  spectator  cannot  help  but  feel  that  the  curses 
must  fall  upon  his  own  head.  This  wonderful  por- 
trayal of  character  is,  in  the  author's  opinion,  the 
greatest  of  the  many  great  reasons  for  the  stupen- 
dous grandeur  of  this  dramatic  composition. 

In  this  chapter,  stress  is  laid  upon  Shakespeare's 
delineation  of  the  characters  in  The  Tragedy  of 
King  Lear  because  the  author  believes  that  the  high 
state  of  their  development  was  one  of  the  principal 
means  employed  by  the  Dramatist  in  creating  a 
play  that  must  rank  among  the  greatest  of  the  great. 
Another  reason  for  so  doing  is  that  the  author  de- 
parts so  fundamentally  from  the  general  conception 
of  these  characters  that  he  feels  called  upon  to  make 
his  purpose  as  clear  as  possible. 

Regan  and  Goneril  are  dreadful  creatures,  devilish 

[66] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

in  their  wickedness,  and  yet  the  insight  that  the 
Dramatist  gives  us  into  all  the  characters  of  this 
play  show  these  women  to  be  so  influenced  by 
heredity  and  environment  as  to  be  the  logical  pro- 
duction of  plainly  discernable  natural  causes  and 
not  monstrosities.  Take  away  from  the  reader  the 
knowledge  that  Lear  was  a  peevish,  vain,  stubborn 
old  man  who  loved  profession  more  than  perform- 
ance, and  both  these  women  would  be  so  horrible 
in  their  lust,  their  cruelty,  and  their  general  wick- 
edness as  to  make  them  monsters  of  unreality.  But 
with  this  character  of  Lear  clearly  depicted,  we  see 
it  was  necessary  for  his  daughters  to  lie  to  him  in 
order  to  receive  at  his  hands  any  consideration,  to 
deceive  him  at  every  turn  in  order  that  their  lives 
might  be  made  bearable.  They  could  plainly  see 
that  their  father  was  unjust  to  them,  that  he  had 
them  in  his  power  and  could  enforce  his  will  upon 
them,  consequently  the  repetition  of  their  deceits 
and  lies  formed  their  habits,  these  habits  fashioned 
their  characters,  and  when  they  got  their  father 
into  their  power  they  treated  him  with  injustice 
because  they  themselves  had  been  brought  up  under 
it.  Shakespeare  understood  that  likes  begets  like, 
consequently  he  gave  Regan  and  Goneril  such  a 
father  as  Lear. 

Much  the  same  reasoning  accounts  for  Cordelia's 
character,  but  she  was  so  disgusted  with  the  false- 
hood of  the  life  her  sisters  lived  that  she  refused 
to  share  it  with  them.  She  was,  however,  her 
father's  true  daughter  in  that  she  possessed  that 

[67] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

stubborn  (or  determined)  trait  of  character  that 
enabled  her  to  hold  to  her  purpose,  even  though 
she  lost  the  third  of  a  kingdom.  The  same  spirit 
that  caused  Lear  to  disinherit  Cordelia,  animated 
her  in  her  refusal  to  flatter  him.  Her  disposition, 
however,  had  been  softened  by  the  influence  of  her 
mother  who,  according  to  the  few  hints  given  by 
Lear,  must  have  been  a  sweet  and  noble  woman. 

In  an  interesting  and  instructive  Life  of  Shake- 
speare by  Oliphent  Smeaton,  M.  A.,  it  is  stated  that 
Regan  and  Goneril  "in  a  fury  of  jealousy  killed  each 
other."*  In  another  portion  of  the  work  it  is  stated, 
"they  perish  miserably,  each  by  the  hand  of  the 
other.""  This  is  wrong,  as  a  reference  to  Scene  III. 
Act  V.  of  the  play  will  show.  Goneril  poisons  her 
sister  Regan  and  stabs  herself  to  the  heart.  The 
text  reads  thus : 

Yet  Edmund  was  belov'd: 
The  one  the  other  poison'd  for  my  sake, 
And  after  slew  herself." 

Reference  is  made  to  this  error  because  of  the  bear- 
ing it  has  on  the  characters  themselves. 

The  center  of  developmept  in  The  Tragedy  of 
King  Lear  is  toward  the  close  of  the  second  act, 
at  the  point  where  Lear  realizes  that  he  is  on  the 
verge  of  madness,  at  the  time  he  utters  the  pathetic, 
heart-breaking  words,  "0  fool!  I  shall  go  mad." 
While  this  occurs  in  the  second  act,  whereas  in 
most  of  Shakespeare's  plays  the  climax,  or  turning 

*  "Shakespeare,  His  Life  and  Work,"  page  416. 
^  "Shakespeare,  His  Life  and  Work,"  page  422. 
0  "King  Lear,"   Act  V.  Scene  IIL 

[68] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

point,  is  reached  in  the  third,  it  is  almost  in  the 
middle  of  the  tragedy. 

The  plot  is  complex,  being  composed  of  the  stories 
of  (1)  Lear,  (2)  Kent,  (3)  Gloster,  with  other  second- 
ary threads  running  into  them,  all  of  which  are 
bound  together  by  the  character  of  Cordelia,  despite 
the  fact  that  the  story  is  dominated  by  the  towering 
character  of  King  Lear. 

The  versification  is  strong,  solid,  and  right  to 
the  point.  It  bears  the  impress  of  having  been 
boiled  down  almost  to  an  essence. 

King  Lear  is  supposed  to  have  reigned  in  Britain 
some  eight  hundred  years  before  the  coming  of 
Christ,  and  the  story  as  employed  by  Shakespeare 
was  handed  down  through  the  ages  as  history. 

In  the  awfulness  of  its  theme  Lear  is  surpassed  by 
no  other  drama;  as  a  tragedy  it  is  second  only  to 
Macbeth;  in  the  perfection  of  its  characterization 
it  stands  supreme. 

The  Tragedy  of  Macbeth 

Macbeth,  from  beginning  to  end,  is  bustle,  tur- 
moil, and  strife.  It  opens  with  the  peal  of  thunder 
and  the  crash  of  lightning;  passes  to  the  armed 
camp,  the  blast  of  the  trumpet,  and  the  roll  of  the 
drum;  and  finally  depicts  the  great  struggle  be- 
tween conscience  and  wicked  ambition.  This  air  of 
strife  permeates  the  entire  drama,  and  is  its  keynote. 

From  a  historical  standpoint  the  play  covers  a 
period  of  about  fifteen  years — from  the  murder  of 

[60] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Duncan  in  1039  to  the  killing  of  Macbeth  in  1054. 
The  historical  facts  used  in  this  tragedy  are 
gathered  from  the  chronicles  of  Raphael  Holinshed 
to  whom  Shakespeare  was  indebted  for  most  of  the 
historical  information  he  used  in  the  plays  that 
deal  with  events  that  transpired  in  Great  Britain. 

The  action  of  the  play  takes  place  in  Scotland, 
except  Scene  III.  Act  IV.,  which  transpires  in  Eng- 
land. 

The  characters  are  vividly  and  accurately 
drawn,  even  the  unimportant  ones,  such  as  the 
Porter,  the  Wounded  Soldier,  and  the  Doctor,  are 
clearly  depicted.  This  trait  of  drawing  vividly  all 
characters,  great  and  small,  is  one  of  the  striking 
characteristics  of  Shakespeare's  handiwork. 

The  plot  is  simple,  consisting  of  the  story  of  the 
murder  of  King  Duncan.  All  that  takes  place  in 
the  play  flows  into  that  tragic  story  or  ebbs  from  it. 

Some  editors  class  the  play  of  Macbeth  with  the 
histories,  but  it  is  so  intensely  dramatic  throughout, 
so  purely  tragic  in  character,  its  very  air  being 
pregnant  with  awful  events,  as  to  stamp  this  classi- 
fication as  erroneous.  The  historical  facts,  in  some 
instances  incorrect,  are  secondary  in  importance, 
Shakespeare  bending  everything  to  the  successful 
creation  of  his  tragedy.  The  main  feature  of  the 
play  is  the  tragic  story  of  the  murder  of  King 
Duncan  and  the  attendant  circumstances.  Why  it 
should  be  classed  as  a  history  cannot  be  seen  by  the 
author  any  more  than  can  a  reason  be  assigned  for 
the  like  classification  of  Lear.    Both  deal  with  his- 

[701 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

torical  incidents  but  in  both  cases  the  incidents  are 
subordinate  to  the  stories,  which  are  highly  and 
purely  tragic. 

In  this  tragedy  Shakespeare  gives  free  rein  to  his 
imagination  and  permits  it  to  run  wild.  The  meta- 
phors are  so  far  drawn  as  to  almost  amount  to 
hyperboles,  but  always  does  the  Dramatist  keep 
within  poetic  bounds.  When  Macbeth  is  contemplat- 
ing the  murder  of  Duncan,  and  is  inclined  to  retire 
from  the  awful  compact  with  his  wife,  he  solilo- 
quizes thus : 

Besides,  this  Duncan 
Hath  borne  his  faculties  so  meek,  hath  been 
So  clear  in  his  great  office,  that  his  virtues 
Will  plead  like  angels,  trumpet- tongued,  against 
The  deep  damnation  of  his  taking  off; 
And  pity,  like  a  naked  new-born  babe, 
Striding  the  blast,  or  heaven's  cherubin,  hors'd 
Upon  the  sightless  couriers  of  the  air, 
Shall  blow  the  horrid  deed  in  every  eye, 
That  tears  shall  drown  the  wind.^ 

This  language  shows  the  excited  state  of  Macbeth 's 
mind  brought  about  by  the  terrific  combat  between 
his  conscience  and  his  ambition.  The  passage  is  not 
far-fetched.  Macbeth  was  in  an  extraordinary 
frame  of  mind  and  it  required  extraordinary  terms 
to  describe  it.  Thus  is  it  with  many  other  passages 
in  this  great  tragedy  of  action — action  that  rushes 
on  so  tumultuously  as  to  almost  bring  about  confu- 
sion— passages  that  have  been  called  in  question  by 
some  critics,  but  they  are  all  as  reasonable  as  the 
passage  just  quoted  and  all  as  easily  explained, 

^"Macbeth,"   Act   I.   Scene  VII. 

[71] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

The  versification  throughout  the  play  is  magnifi- 
cent, fully  up  to  Shakespeare's  highest  standard, 
and  absolutely  in  keeping  with  the  awfulness  of  the 
story. 

The  dialogue  is  wonderfully  sustained,  some 
scenes,  notably  those  between  Macbeth  and  Lady 
Macbeth,  being  without  peer.  The  high  point  of 
development  in  this  tragedy  is  reached  in  Act  III. 
Scene  IV.  Up  to  the  appearance  of  the  Ghost  of 
Banquo  all  has  gone  with  Macbeth  as  he  desired: 
the  crown  is  on  his  brow  and  he  is  King  of  Scotland. 
From  the  appearance  of  the  Ghost,  however,  the 
decline  in  his  fortunes  begins  and  continues  without 
change  to  his  death  at  the  hands  of  Macduff. 

The  domestic  aspect  of  the  tragedy  equals  that  of 
Othello;  its  philosophical  phase  is  comparable  with 
that  of  Hamlet ;  while  in  the  awfulness  of  its  catas- 
trophe it  is  not  exceeded  even  by  Lear. 

Macbeth  stands  pre-eminently  at  the  head  of 
Shakespeare 's  tragedies ;  and  as  he  was  the  greatest 
dramatist  of  all  known  times,  Macbeth  is  the  master 
tragedy  of  the  ages. 

As  You  Like  It 

The  tone  of  this  sweet  woodland  play  is  as  fra- 
grant as  the  odor  of  a  breeze  blowing  through  a  gar- 
den of  unseen  roses  and  bearing  the  fragrance  of  the 
lovely  flowers  throughout  the  land.  Whence  comes 
this  fragrance  it  is  hard  to  tell,  but  that  it  is  there,  is 
perceptible  to  all  who  read  this  charming  play.    It 

[72  J 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

possesses  the  odor  of  the  glade,  the  joy  of  the  danc- 
ing brook,  the  song  of  the  bird,  and  a  general  air 
of  perfect  naturalness.  Of  all  Shakespeare's  com- 
edies it  is  the  one  that  is  most  restful  and  exhilar- 
ating— restful  in  the  charm  of  the  idealistic  atmos- 
phere of  the  play,  and  exhilarating  in  the  portrayal 
by  the  characters  of  some  of  the  noblest  traits  of 
humanity.  It  is  purely  a  pastoral  drama;  and,  as 
with  many  others  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  we  are  in- 
debted for  our  interest  and  entertainment  more  to  the 
characters  and  their  expressions  of  sentiments  than 
to  the  development  of  the  plot. 

As  You  Like  It  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  in 
1599,  but  was  not  printed  until  it  appeared  in  The 
First  Folio.  It  is  presumed  that  Shakespeare  is 
indebted  to  a  novel  by  Thomas  Lodge,  published  in 
1590,  entitled  Rosalynd;  Euphues'  Golden  Legacies, 
for  the  story  out  of  which  he  constructed  this 
comedy. 

The  plot  is  complex.  The  main  thread  of  the 
plot  is  the  story  of  Rosalind  and  Orlando.  The 
secondary  ones  are,  (1)  Oliver  and  Orlando;  (2) 
The  usurping  Duke;  (3)  The  banished  Duke  and  his 
companions;  (4)  Rosalind  and  Phoebe;  (5)  Touch- 
stone and  Audrey. 

The  play  contains  some  of  the  gems  of  Shake- 
speare. (1)  "Now,  my  co-mates,  and  brothers  in 
exile,"  "Indeed,  my  lord,  etc.,"  and  "0!  yes,  into 
a  thousand  similes"  (Act  II.  Scene  I.)  ;  (2)  "A  fool! 
a  fool! —  I  met  a  fool  in  the  forest"  and  "All  the 

[73] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

world's  a  stage  (Act  II.  Scene  VII.);  (3)  "Think 
not.  I  love  him"  (Act  III.  Scene  V.). 

The  characters  fit  into  the  story  beautifully,  they 
are  drawn  with  the  best  skill  of  the  Dramatist,  and 
show  distinctive  traits  that  mark  and  individualize 
every  one. 

As  You  Like  It,  taken  for  all  in  all,  is  the  best 
of  Shakespeare 's  plays  that  can  be  distinctly  termed 
comedies.  The  plot  is  sustained  throughout,  the 
versification  in  places  excellent,  and  the  character- 
ization superb.  It  is  a  favorite  on  the  stage  and  is 
equally  enjoyable  in  the  closet. 

Twelfth  Night 

This  delightful  comedy  was  written  about  the 
year  1600.  It  is  not  known  to  have  been  printed 
until  its  appearance  in  The  First  Folio  in  1623. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  where  Shakespeare  got  the 
story  for  this  play.  He  may  have  taken  it  from  a 
tale  by  Barnaby  Rich  who,  in  his  turn,  most  likely, 
took  it  from  the  Italian  of  Bandello,  but  there  is 
such  scant  evidence  at  hand  as  to  the  source  of  the 
plot  that  no  one  can  do  more  than  hazard  a  guess. 

The  play  sparkles  with  wit  and  has  an  atmosphere 
of  poetry.  The  style  of  composition  is  almost  flaw- 
less, being  simple  and  chaste;  harmless  intrigue, 
whimsicalities  and  accidents  being  interwoven  in 
an  amusing  and  interesting  manner.  There  are  two 
distinct  parts  to  the  play,  one  serious  the  other 
comic,  but  Viola  enters  into  both  and  thus  binds 
them  together. 

[74] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

Three  threads  form  the  plot,  (1)  Love  of  Orsino 
for  the  Countess  Olivia;  (2)  The  story  of  Sebastian 
and  Viola;  (3)  Malvolio  and  the  group  of  characters 
surrounding  him. 

Twelfth  Night  is  particularly  strong  in  the  bold 
comedy  portion,  the  characters  that  are  there  intro- 
duced being  wonderfully  well  drawn.  Malvolio, 
Sir  Toby,  and  Sir  Andrew  comparing  favorably  with 
Falstaff,  Bardolph,  and  Pistol. 

The  romantic  element  of  the  play,  introduced  by 
Viola,  is  soothingly  sweet,  being  best  expressed  by 
the  Dramatist's  own  lines  which  he  puts  in  the  mouth 
of  Orsino : 

0 !  it  came  o'er  my  ear  like  the  sweet  south, 
That  breathes  upon  a  bank  of  violets, 
Stealing  and  giving  odor.* 

There  are  many  poetical  passages  in  this  play, 
one  of  the  tenderest  and  sweetest  being  Viola's 
description  of  the  love  "her  father's  daughter"  en- 
tertained for  a  man  (Act  II.  Scene  IV.).  The 
refined,  womanly  character  of  Viola,  one  of  the 
best  of  Shakespeare's  creations,  permeates  the  en- 
tire play  and  gives  it  most  of  its  beauty.  The 
comedy  has  always  been  considered  one  of  Shake- 
speare's happiest  productions. 

Much  Ado  About  Nothing 

The  play  aptly  carries  out  its  title,  for  it  is  truly 
founded  upon  nothing  and  it  makes  much  ado.  It 
is  pregnant  with  life,  bright  in  dialogue,  but  defi- 

8Act  I.  Scene  I. 

[75] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

cient  in  reason  for  all  the  commotion  that  it  por- 
trays. 

It  was  probably  written  in  1599,  printed  in  quarto 
form  in  1560,  and  reprinted,  with  few  modifications, 
in  The  First  Folio.  In  the  quarto  it  appears  with 
neither  the  acts  nor  scenes  marked,  while  in  the 
folio  the  matter  is  arranged  into  acts  but  not  scenes. 
The  text,  in  both  printings,  is  very  accurate.  It  is 
written  mainly  in  prose,  only  643  out  of  the  2823 
lines  that  compose  it  being  in  blank  verse. 

The  sources  of  its  plot  are  Italian,  being  mainly 
taken  from  a  novel  by  Bandello  entitled  Timbreo  di 
Cardona.  The  work  of  the  Italian  writer  was  trans- 
lated into  French  and  appears  in  Belief orest's  His- 
toires  Tragiques.  It  was  used  by  Aristo  in  his  Orlando 
Furioso,  and  this  was  transferred  into  English  by 
Peter  Beverly  in  1565  and  by  Sir  John  Harrington 
in  1591.  Whether  Shakespeare  took  the  material 
directly  from  the  Italian,  or  from  the  French  or 
English  translation,  is  not  known. 

The  entire  action  of  the  play  takes  place  at 
Messina. 

The  plot  is  exceedingly  thin,  the  play  depending 
entirely  on  the  characters  for  its  action  and  interest. 
The  characters  are  drawn  with  Shakespeare 's  accus- 
tomed skill,  all  of  them,  even  the  unimportant  ones, 
standing  out  in  lifelike  proportions,  and  no  two  are 
similar. 

There  are  two  distinct  threads  to  the  story  which 
are  bound  together  by  the  main  agent  of  the  plot, 
John,  the  bastard  brother  of  Don  Pedro,  Prince  of 

[76] 


CLASSES    OF    SHAKESPEARE'S   PLAYS 

Arragon.  These  threads  are  (1)  the  love  of  Bene- 
dick and  Beatrice,  and  (2)  the  story  of  Hero. 

The  interest  of  the  play  consists  of  (1)  the  witty 
passages  between  Benedick  and  Beatrice;  (2)  the 
almost  tragic  experience  of  Hero;  and  (3)  the  drol- 
lery of  Dogberry  and  Verges.  There  is  no  depth 
to  the  plot  nor  the  characters,  all  the  beauties  of 
this  excellent  play  being  on  the  surface. 

The  plot  development  is  in  the  main,  catastrophic, 
moving  steadily  along  to  the  happy  ending.  Shake- 
speare had  only  to  make  Hero  die  in  reality,  instead 
of  appearance,  in  order  to  turn  his  comedy  into  a 
tragedy. 

King  Henry  V 

This  play  is  purely  historical,  depicting  events 
in  the  life  of  a  monarch  who  typifies  all  that  is  noble 
and  heroic  in  the  nation  he  was  intended  by  its 
author  to  represent. 

The  scene  of  this  patriotic  drama  is  England  in 
the  vicinity  of  London,  and  then  on  the  battlefields 
of  France  and  the  palace  of  the  French  King. 

As  to  plot  proper,  there  is  very  little  to  this  play. 
The  story  consists  of  episodes  in  the  life  of  King 
Henry  V.  that  are  strung  together  in  an  inspiring 
manner,  but  the  plot  lacks  the  strength  and  gran- 
deur that  goes  with  unity.  Its  episodes  are  interest- 
ing, stirring  and  brilliant,  and  in  this  lies  the  princi- 
pal charm  of  the  patriotic  fervor  of  the  English 
nation  typified  in  the  person  of  its  king.  This 
fervor  runs  through  the  entire  play,  and  is  about 

[77] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

all  there  is  in  the  way  of  a  plot.  At  the  close  of  the 
battle  of  Agincourt,  when  victory  has  perched  on 
the  banners  of  England,  the  play  practically  ends, 
but  the  Dramatist,  as  though  with  the  express  pur- 
pose of  showing  the  soldier-king  in  love,  adds  the 
scene  depicting  his  wooing  of  Katherine. 

While  there  is  not  a  great  amount  of  action  in 
the  play,  save  what  pertains  to  the  individual  scenes, 
Henry  himself  is  action  personified  and  injects  this 
quality,  by  reflection,  into  the  play  itself. 

The  play  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  in  1598, 
was  printed  in  quarto  form  in  1600,  and  reprinted  in 
1602  and  1608.  Shakespeare's  name,  however,  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  attached  to  the  play  until 
it  appeared  in  The  First  Folio,  where  it  is  about 
double  the  length  of  the  quartos. 

The  materials  that  enter  into  the  making  of  this 
play  are  taken  from  two  sources:  (1)  The  second 
edition  of  Holinshed  's  Chronicles,  which  was  printed 
in  1587,  and  (2)  an  old  play  entitled  The  Famous 
Victories  of  Henry  V. 


[78] 


CHAPTER  IV 

Shakespeare's   Revelation  of  Himself 
in  His  Characters 

THE  greater  the  mystery  that  attaches  to  a  per- 
son the  more  interesting  that  person  is  to 
others,  and  while  it  is  mainly  because  of  Shake- 
speare's genius  that  interest  is  drawn  to  him,  this 
interest  is  often  promoted,  and  is  generally  en- 
hanced, by  the  mystery  that  surrounds  his  life. 

Of  Shakespeare  the  man  very  little  is  known.  Some 
of  his  fellow  actors  speak  of  him  as  a  charming 
companion,  a  lovable  friend,  and  a  marvelous  writer, 
and  Ben  Jonson  tells  us  that  he  was  "honest  and 
of  an  open  and  free  nature;  had  an  excellent  phan- 
tasy, brave  notions,  and  gentle  expressions,"  but 
nowhere  can  we  find  positive  and  comprehensive 
information  concerning  his  habits,  his  motives,  his 
appearance,  and  his  character.  As  far  as  his  physical 
parts  are  concerned  we  know  nothing,  no  two  pic- 
tures of  him  agreeing  in  any  important  particular, 
nor  do  the  different  descriptions  given  his  height, 
the  cut  of  his  beard,  the  color  of  his  hair  and  eyes, 
correspond.  These,  of  course,  are  unimportant  par- 
ticulars, and  do  not  affect  his  standing  as  an  author, 
yet  the  absence  of  all  accuracy  concerning  them 
shows  how  little  is  known  regarding  the  physical 
parts  of  the  man. 

[79] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

In  regard  to  his  spiritual  parts  we  know  no  more 
than  we  do  concerning  his  material  parts,  and  we 
have  no  source  of  information  concerning  his  ideas 
of  life,  his  temperament  and  his  actions,  unless  it 
is  furnished  by  himself  in  his  plays  and  in  the  son- 
nets. It  is  claimed  that  he  did  reveal  himself  in 
his  works,  that  he  identified  himself  with  his  char- 
acters, spoke  through  them,  and  thus  portrayed  his 
nature.  Is  this  the  fact?  Let  us  call  upon  the  dif- 
ferent characters  for  their  testimony,  and  see  how 
they  will  agree. 

What  were  Shakespeare's  religious  convictions? 
Was  Shakespeare  a  Catholic?  Many  claim  that  he 
was,  and  they  give  as  their  reasons  for  this  belief 
his  knowledge  of  the  forms  and  observances  of  that 
religion  as  shown  in  his  plays,  and  the  utterances  of 
the  characters  therein  depicted.  Now  let  us  cite 
evidence  to  prove  that  he  gives  ample  reasons  for 
supposing  that  he  was  a  non-Catholic. 

Laertes,  after  his  sister's  body  has  been  denied 
the  full  offices  of  the  church,  on  account  of  the 
circumstances  attending  her  death,  has  this  to  say: 

I  tell  thee  churlish  priest, 
A  ministering  angel  shall  my  sister  be, 
When  thou  liest  howling. 

— Hamlet,  Act  V.  Scene  I. 

Does  this  sound  as  though  it  came  from  the  mouth 
of  a  true  Catholic?  Would  such  a  one  tell  a  priest, 
of  his  church  that  a  suicide  would  be  an  angel  in 
heaven  while  the  priest  was  howling  in  hell  ?    Hardly. 

[80] 


REVELATION    OP    HIMSELF 

In  The  First  Part  of  King  Henry  VI.  the  Duke  of 
Gloucester  thus  addresses  Cardinal  Beaufort: 

What!  am  I  dared  and  bearded  to  my  face? 

Draw,  men,  for  all  this  privileged  place; 

Blue  coats  to  tawny  coats.    Priest,  beware  your  beard; 

I  mean  to  tug  it  and  to  cuff  you  soundly: 

Under  my  feet  I  stamp  thy  cardinal's  hat : 

In  spite  of  pope  or  dignities  of  church, 

Here  by  the  cheeks  I'll  drag  thee  up  and  down. 

— First  Part  of  King  Henry  VI.,  Act  I.  Scene  III. 

It  may  be  that  Shakespeare  was  a  Catholic,  but  if 
he  spoke  through  his  characters,  these  two  incidents 
would  go  to  prove  that  he  was  not.  But  no,  he  did 
not  hide  behind  "the  children  of  his  brain,"  he 
merely  put  into  their  mouths  the  words  that  ex- 
pressed the  emotions  they  were  pictured  as  laboring 
under  at  the  time.  Thus  he  causes  the  hot-headed 
youth,  Laertes,  smarting  under  what  he  imagined 
an  indignity  and  a  wrong  done  to  his  sister,  to  cry 
out  against  those  responsible  for  his  grievance  with- 
out considering  their  office  or  station.  In  like 
manner,  he  permitted  him  to  speak  his  mind  to  the 
King  freely  when  he  thought  him  responsible  for  his 
sister's  death,  or,  at  least,  conniving  at  it.  He 
allowed  the  ambitious  Richard,  who  had  respect 
neither  for  God  nor  man,  to  give  vent  to  his  hatred 
for  the  Cardinal.  The  passages  quoted  express  the 
sentiments  of  Laertes  and  Gloucester,  but  in  no  way 
do  they  reflect  the  opinions  of  William  Shakespeare. 
Was  Shakespeare  a  believer  in  the  liberties  of  the 
people,  or  did  he  think  them  only  creatures  to  be 

[81] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

governed    and   used   by    their   betters?     In   Corio- 
lanus  he  says : 

This  double  worship 
Where  one  part  does  disdain  with  cause,  the  other 
Insult  without  all  reason;  where  gentry,  title,  wisdom, 
Cannot  conclude  but  by  the  yea  and  no 
Of  general  ignorance, — it  must  omit 
Real  necessities,  and  give  way  the  while 
To  unstable  slightness:    purpose  so  bar'd,  it  follows, 
Nothing  is  done  to  purpose.    Therefore,  beseech  you, — 
You  that  will  be  less  feared  than  discreet; 
That  love  the  fundamental  part  of  state 
More  than  you  doubt  the  change  on't;  that  prefer 
A  noble  life  before  a  long,  and  wish 
To  jump  a  body  with  a  dangerous  physic 
That's  sure  of  death  without  it, — at  once  pluck  out 
The  multitudinous  tongue;  let  them  not  lick 
The  sweet  that  is  their  poison, 

— Coriolanus,  Act  III.  Scerh  I. 

Or    did   he   believe   in   Jack   Cade's    conception   of 
liberty  ? 

And  you  that  love  the  commons,  follow  me. 
Now  show  yourselves  men;  'tis  for  liberty. 
We  will  not  leave  one  lord,  one  gentleman :  v 

Spare  none  but  such  as  go  in  clouted  shoon; 
For  they  are  thrifty  honest  men,  and  such 
As  would,  but  that  they  dare  not,  take  our  parts. 
— Second  Part  of  King  Henry  VI.,  Act  IV.  Soene  II. 

Was  Shakespeare  pure  in  heart  or  base?  He 
places  in  the  mouth  of  Hamlet  these  w^ords  descrip- 
tive of  those  who  are  of  a  well-balanced  and  noble 
nature : 

Since  my  dear  soul  was  mistress  of  her  choice. 
And  could  of  men  distinguish,  her  election 
Hath  seal'd  thee  for  herself :   for  thou  hast  been 
As  one,  in  suffering  all,  that  suffers  nothing; 

[82] 


REVELATION   OF    HIMSELF 

A  man  that  fortune's  buifets  and  rewards 
Hast  ta'en  with  equal  thanks :  and  blest  are  those 
Whose  blood  and  judgment  are  so  well  commingled 
That  they  are  not  a  pipe  for  fortune's  finger 
To  sound  what  stop  she  please.    Give  me  that  man 
That  is  not  passion's  slave,  and  I  will  wear  him 
In  my  heart's  core,  ay,  in  mj-  heart  of  heart, 
As  I  do  thee. 

— Hamlet,  Act  III.  Scene  II. 

Does  the  above  description  fit  tihe  character  of 
Shakespeare,  or  is  his  portrait  depicted  in  the  fol- 
lowing passage  from  the  Tragedy  of  Richard  III.? 

And  therefore  since  I  cannot  prove  a  lover, 
To  entertain  these  fair  well-spoken  days, 
I  am  determined  to  prove  a  villain, 
And  hate  the  idle  pleasures  of  these  days. 
Plots  have  I  lain,  inductions  dangerous. 
By  drunken  prophecies,  libels  and  dreams, 
To  set  my  brother  Clarence  and  the  king 
In  deadly  hate  the  one  against  the  other; 
And  if  King  Edward  be  as  true  and  just 
As  I  am  subtle,  false  and  treacherous. 
This  day  should  Clarence  closely  be  mew'd  up. 

— Richard  III.,  Act  I.  Scene  I. 

How  are  we  to  judge  whether  Shakespeare  revealed 
himself  as 

"A  man  that  fortune's  buffets  and  rewards 
Hast  ta'en  with  equal  thanks," 

or  as  the  hunchback  tyrant  railing  against  the  world 
and  picturing  himself  as  "subtle,  false  and  treach- 
erous?" Here  are  two  portraits  drawn  by  the  same 
hand,  depicting  two  distinct  individuals,  but  where 
is  the  warrant  for  the  belief  that  a  third  person  is 
revealed  in  either  one  or  both? 

'  [83] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Did  Shakespeare  believe  in  the  purity  of  woman? 
Let  us  call  on  Isabella  for  her  testimony. 

As  much  for  my  poor  brother  as  myself: 

That  is,  were  I  under  the  terms  of  death, 

The  impression  of  keen  whips  I'd  wear  as  rubies. 

And  strip  myself  to  death,  as  to  a  bed 

That  longing  I've  been  sick  for,  ere  I'd  yield 

My  body  up  to  shame. 

— Measure  for  Measure,  Act  II.  Scene  IV. 

Thus  speaks  the  noble  maiden  when  her  brother's 
life  is  offered  to  her  in  exchange  for  her  own  chasity. 
Now  we  will  ask  Cressida  for  her  voice  regarding 
the  virtue  of  her  sex.    This  is  her  reply : 

Troilus,  farewell !  one  eye  yet  looks  on  thee, 
But  with  my  heart  the  other  eye  doth  see. 
Oh,  poor  our  sex!  this  fault  in  us  I  find. 
The  error  of  our  eye  directs  our  mind : 
What  error  leads,  must  err :  0 !  then  conclude. 
Minds,  sway'd  by  eyes,  are  full  of  turpitude. 

—Troilus  and  Cressida,  Act  V.  Scene  II. 

Is  this  evidence  to  show  that  Shakespeare  had  any- 
thing further  in  mind  than  depicting  the  pure, 
steadfast  character  of  one  type  of  woman  in  Isabella, 
and  the  impure,  changeful  character  of  another  type 
in  Cressida?  In  order  to  make  it  appear  as  though 
he  had,  we  must  attribute  to  him  intentions  that  he 
does  not  tell  us  nor  show  us  that  he  possessed. 

Did  Shakespeare  believe  in  the  honesty  of  man, 
or  did  he  consider  him  absolutely  mercenary?  If 
we  hold  that  he  revealed  himself  in  his  characters, 
and  cite  Brutus  to  bear  witness  for  him,  we  must 
decide  that  he  not  only  believed  in  the  integrity  of 

[84] 


REVELATION    OF    HIMSELF 

man,  but  that  he  himself  was  most  loyal  and  honora- 
ble.   Listen  to  the  testimony  of  Brutus: 

If  it  be  aught  toward  the  general  good, 
Set  honor  in  one  eye  and  death  i'  the  other, 
And  I  will  look  on  both  indifferently : 
For  let  the  Gods  so  speed  me  as  I  love 
The  name  of  honor  more  than  I  fear  death, 

— Julius  Caesar,  Act  I.  Scene  II. 

This  would  be  all  very  well  if  Brutus  were  the  only 
witness  examined,  but  here  is  another  come  into 
court  and  anxious  to  be  heard.  Note  the  testimony 
of  Cassius : 

Well,  Brutus,  thou  art  noble;  yet,  I  see, 
Thy  honorable  metal  may  be  wrought 
From  that  it  is  dispos'd:   therefore,  'tis  meet 
That  noble  minds  keep  ever  with  their  likes ; 
For  who  so  firm  that  cannot  be  seduc'd? 

— Julius  Caesar,  Act  I.  Scene  II. 

How  are  we  to  reconcile  the  opposing  testimony  of 
these  two  capable  witnesses?  Is  there  any  way  to 
do  so  and  still  hold  the  belief  that  Shakespeare 
revealed  himself  in  his  characters? 

Here  we  have  produced  eight  witnesses  to  testify 
regarding  the  characteristics  of  the  man  Shake- 
speare as  revealed  in  his  work.  "We  find  that  four 
state  that  he  honored  the  people,  was  pure  in  heart, 
and  believed  in  the  purity  of  woman  and  the  honesty 
of  man;  while  the  other  four  picture  him  as  being 
an  aristocrat  who  depised  the  common  people,  was 
impure  in  heart,  and  a  believer  in  the  frailty  of 
woman  and  the  perfidy  of  man.  WTiich  are  we  to 
accept?    It  seems  the  wiser  plan  to  believe  neither 

[85] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

set  of  witnesses  but  to  throw  the  whole  case  out 
of  court  and  look  upon  Shakespeare  as  a  special 
advocate  pleading  in  behalf  of  the  individual  char- 
acter and  keeping  himself  entirely  out  of  the  scene 
except  as  the  advocate  urging  the  cause  of  his  client. 
Thus  does  he  represent  Shylock  demanding  the  for- 
feit according  to  the  bond ;  English  Harry  inspiring 
his  nobles  and  yeomen  once  more  to  attempt  to 
carry  the  walled  town  of  Harfleur ;  the  guilty  Scotch 
queen  vainly  striving  to  wash  the  blood  from  her 
little  hand;  the  scheming  lago;  the  melancholy 
Jacques;  the  lovesick  Romeo;  the  ambitious  Mac- 
beth ;  the  eloquent  Antony,  and  the  many  other 
characters  of  different  times,  complexions  and  de- 
grees, which,  in  a  marvelously  natural  manner,  ' '  strut 
their  hour  upon  the  stage." 

A  Shakespearean  scholar,^  contending  that  the 
Dramatist  revealed  himself  in  his  characters,  has 
this  to  say:  "If  anybody  could  have  doubt  about 
the  liveliness  of  Shakespeare,  let  them  consider  the 
liveliness  of  Falstaff.  When  a  man  has  created 
that  without  a  capacity  for  laughter,  then  a  blind  man 
may  succeed  in  describing  colors."  Would  it  not 
be  just  as  reasonable  to  say.  If  anybody  could  have 
doubt  about  the  melancholy  of  Shakespeare,  let  him 
consider  the  melancholy  of  Hamlet?  Might  we  not, 
with  as  much  right,  claim  that  he  was  a  murderer 
at  heart  because  he  so  vividly  portrays  the  blood- 
thirsty villain  when  he  depicts  Macbeth  treating 
with  the  two  ruffians  for  the  untimely  cutting  off  of 

^  AValter  Bagehot  in   "Shakespeare  —  the  Man." 

[86] 


REVELATION    OF    HIMSELF 

Banquo  and  his  son  Fleance,  and  when  Richard  III. 
fiendishly  arranges  for  the  murder  of  the  young 
princes?  Might  one  not,  with  equal  reason,  argue 
that  Shakespeare  was  a  woman  because  he  so  mar- 
velously  portrays  her  sweet  characteristics  in  Juliet, 
Desdemona  and  Cordelia,  while  with  equal  skill  he 
pictures  her  baser  nature  in  Goneril,  Regan,  and 
Lady  Macbeth?  It  was  not  necessary  that  Shake- 
speare should  be  of  a  lively  disposition  in  order  to 
draw  the  character  of  Falstaff,  nor  that  he  should  be 
melancholy  that  he  might  depict  Hamlet,  nor  that 
he  should  be  a  woman  that  he  might  delineate  the 
traits  common  to  that  sex.  But  it  was  necessary 
that  he  should  know  human  nature,  should  possess 
a  knowledge  of  the  many  emotions  and  characters 
before  he  could  reproduce  them,  and  this  knowledge 
he  certainly  possessed  to  a  greater  extent  than  any 
other  human  being  the  world  has  ever  known. 

Daffodils 
That  come  before  the  swallow  dares,  and  take 
The  winds  of  March  with  beauty;  violets  dim, 
But  sweeter  than  the  lids  of  Juno's  eyes 
Or  Cythera's  breath. 

—The  Wititer's  Tale,  Act  IV.  Scene  III. 

Are  these  charming  lines  descriptive  of  Shake- 
speare's love  of  nature,  or  are  they  but  expressive 
of  the  love  of  Perdita  for  her  prince  of  Bohemia, 
couched  in  terms  that  were  made  familiar  to  her 
through  intercourse  with  nature?  If  the  latter  is 
not  the  case,  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  follow- 
ing? 

[87] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON   SHAKESPEARE 

For  brave  Macbeth  —  well  he  deserves  that  name  — 
Disdaining  fortune,  with  his  brandish'd  steel 
Which  smoked  with  bloody  execution, 
Like  valor's  minion  carved  out  his  passage 
Till  he  faced  the  slave; 

Which  never  shook  hands,  nor  bade  farewell  to  him, 
Till  he  unseam'd  him  from  the  nave  to  the  chaps, 
And  fix'd  his  head  upon  our  battlements. 

— Macbeth,  Act  I.  Scene  II. 

Could  a  bloody  encounter  be  more  vividly  por- 
trayed? This  passage  is  certainly  as  truely  pic- 
tured as  is  the  one  of  the  daffodils  and  the  violets, 
and  it  would  be  just  as  correct  for  us  to  say  that 
the  passage  from  Macbeth  denotes  Shakespeare's 
blood-thirsty  disposition  as  it  is  to  claim,  that  the 
extract  from  The  Winter's  Tale  demonstrates  his 
love  of  nature. 

Does  a  playvrright  indicate  his  own  character  in 
the  puppets  he  creates?  One  writer"  on  this  subject 
says:  "A  dramatist  lets  us  know,  and  cannot  help 
letting  us  know,  what  is  his  general  view  of  his 
fellow  creatures  and  of  the  world  in  which  they  live. 
It  is  his  very  function  to  do  so,  and  though  the 
indication  may  be  indirect,  it  is  not  the  less  signifi- 
cant of  the  observer's  own  peculiarities."  Wherever 
a  playwright  obtrudes  his  personal  opinions,  or 
endeavors  to  project  himself  into  his  characters, 
we  have  a  poor  play.  A  playwright  should  develop 
characters  along  fixed  lines,  and  reason  out  that 
because  they  are  of  certain  natures  they  should  ex- 
press certain  ideas  and  portray  certain  emotions, 
but  never  should  he  parade  himself  upon  the  stage. 

'Leslie   Stephen   in    "Self-Revelation  of  Shakespeare." 

[88] 


REVELATION    OF    HIMSELF 

The  playwright  differs  from  the  poet  in  the  same 
manner  that  the  actor  differs  from  the  orator.  The 
playwright  studies  man  and  aims  to  reproduce  him 
and  not  to  create  him,  he  does  not  endeavor  to 
fashion  images  of  himself  and  trot  them  out  upon  the 
stage  to  sermonize,  but  he  looks  out  into  the  world 
and  produces  distinct  and  individual  characters 
which  he  allows  to  lell  their  stories.  The  poet  gazes 
into  his  own  heart  and  reveals  its  contents,  showing 
how  Nature  acts  upon  him  and  influences  him.  He 
calls  upon  his  imagination,  and  by  means  of  it  he 
sees  things  as  he  thinks  they  should  be  and  not  as 
they  are.  In  fact,  the  poet  is  the  antithesis  of  the 
playwright,  because  the  former  is  fanciful  and  the 
latter  is  realistic,  and  as  soon  as  the  playwright 
ceases  to  be  realistic  he  ceases  to  be  a  playwright. 
He  must  hold,  ''as  'twere,  the  mirror  up  to  nature," 
being  a  reflector,  or  copyist,  and  not  an  originator, 
but  always  a  realist. 

In  the  same  manner  we  distinguish  the  actor  from 
the  orator.  The  actor  should  never  be  himself,  he 
should  lose  his  identity  in  his  character,  and  unless 
he  does  this,  he  is  real,  and  consequently  cannot  be 
acting,  for  to  act  is  to  be  other  than  oneself.  The 
orator,  however,  is  an  orator  only  so  long  as  he  is 
himself,  so  long  as  he  is  giving  expression  to  his  own 
views  and  is  absolutely  sincere  in  all  he  says  and 
does. 

Shakespeare  w^^s  an  actor  and  a  playwright  who 
thoroughly  understood  the  principles  underlying 
those  arts,  consequently  it  is  only  fair  to  assume  that 

[89] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

he  had  no  desire  to  reveal  himself  i-n  his  plays,  that 
he  did  not  attempt  to  do  so,  and  that  nowhere  in 
his  writings  does  he  speak  excep'i  as  the  character 
he  is  representing  should  speak  in  order  that  it 
may  be  developed  along  effective  and  natural  lines. 

Shakespeare  does  not  reveal  his  sympathies 
through  his  characters,  but  he  caiases  them  to  speak 
and  move  as  will  best  suit  his  purpose  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  stage,  and  he  does  not  reward  or 
punish  them  according  to  their  deserts.  Otherwise 
the  fair  Ophelia  would  not  have  perished  a  suicide, 
Desdemona  would  not  have  been  murdered,  Romeo 
and  Juliet  would  not  have  been  parked,  nor  would 
such  terrible  affliction  have  been  visited  upon  the 
head  of  poor  old  Lear.  The  hand  of  fate  apparently 
controlled  the  creations  of  Shakespeare  just  as  the 
hand  of  Providence  regulates  the  lives  of  mortals 
and  ''directs  our  ends  rough  hew  them  as  we  will." 
He  moved  his  characters  in  the  mimic  world  in  order 
that  he  might  produce  a  powerful  play  that  would 
attract  audiences  to  the  theatre,  and  not  to  indicate 
his  own  character. 

Shakespeare  depicted  all  the  emotior'>  the  human 
being  is  capatsle  of  feeling,  and  he  dre^v^  true  to  life 
the  men  and  women  of  all  climes  and  s  ations.  The 
Italian  Romeo,  the  French  Katherine",  Othello  the 
Moor,  English  Harry,  Shylock  the  Jew,  Hamlet  the 
Dane,  and  all  his  other  characters  ao  makes  stand 
out  on  the  printed  page  as  thoui^h  brought  back 
from  the  grave  to  revisit,  at  the  call  of  the  reader, 
"the  glimpses  of  the  moon."     The  crafty,  cynical 

[90] 


REVELATION    OF    HIMSELF 

villain  speaks  in  lago;  the  open,  buoyant  spirit  in 
Mercutio;  the  physically  courageous  but  mentally 
cowardly  in  Macbeth;  the  vain,  sorely  punished  in 
Lear;  and  the  far-seeing  politician  in  Marc  Antony. 
In  Juliet  he  depicts  the  warm-hearted,  trusting  girl ; 
in  Rosalind  one  whose  deep  affectionate  nature  is 
masked  by  her  mirth  and  wit ;  in  Lady  Macbeth  the 
ambitious,  unscrupulous  woman ;  and  in  Cordelia  the 
faithful  child  who  would  rather  sacrifice  her  share 
in  her  father's  kingdom  than  flatter  his  ears  with 
meaningless  and  exaggerated  protestations  of  affec- 
tion which  her  true  heart  told  her  should  not  be 
uttered.  Shakespeare  puts  into  the  mouth  of  prince 
and  peasant  words  appropriate  to  each,  and  depicts 
accurately  the  scenes  of  camp,  palace,  and  hovel. 
In  fact,  his  genius  swept  the  gamut  of  passion  from 
foundation  to  apex,  and  created  all  kinds,  classes 
and  conditions  of  beings  so  true  to  nature  as  to 
make  one  almost  believe  that  in  his  person  lived  the 
magician  Prospero  armed  with  his  fabled  wand. 


[91] 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Bible  in  Shakespeare 

THAT  Shakespeare  was  familiar  with  the  Bible 
is  attested  by  the  fact  that  in  most  of  his  plays 
some  mention  is  made  of  persons  or  events  that  are 
spoken  of  or  described  in  it.  What  particular  version 
of  the  Bible  he  used  is  not  known,  but  it  was  most 
likely  either  the  first  complete  English  Bible  of  Myles 
Coverdale  issued  in  1535,  the  Geneva  Bible  published 
in  1560,  or  what  is  known  as  the  Bishop 's  Bible  which 
appeared  in  1568.  It  certainly  was  not  the  version 
known  as  the  King  James,  because  this  was  not  pub- 
lished until  1611,  five  years  before  the  death  of 
Shakespeare,  or  about  the  time  he  ceased  his  labors 
as  a  playwright.  But  what  evidence  we  possess  points 
to  its  having  been  the  Geneva  Bible.  The  evidence 
consists  of  the  similarity  of  words  and  phrases  used 
by  Shakespeare  and  those  found  in  the  Geneva  Bible. 

Let  us  first  examine  The  Merchant  of  Venice  to  see 
what  influence  the  Bible  had  on  the  writings  of  Shake- 
speare. 

Gratiano,  in  Act  I.  Scene  I.,  expresses  himself  thus : 

0  my  Antonio,  I  do  know  of  these 

That  therefore  only  are  reputed  wise 

For  saying  nothing;  when,  I  am  sure. 

If  they  should  speak,  would  almost  damn  those  ears 

Which,  hearing  them,  would  call  their  brothers  fools. 

[92] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEAEE 

"Would  caU  their  brothers  fools"  was  inspired  by 
Matthew  V.,  22,  which  is  as  follows: 

But  I  say  unto  you,  that  whosoever  is  angry 
with  his  brother  without  cause  shall  be  in  danger  of 
the  judgment :  and  whosoever  shall  say  to  his 
brother,  Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  council: 
but  whosoever  shall  say,  Thou  fool,  shall  be  in  dan- 
ger of  heU  fire. 

In  Act  I.  Scene  III.  Shylock  says : 

Yes,  to  smell  pork;  to  eat  of  the  habitation 
which  your  prophet,  the  Nazarite,  conjured  the 
devil  into. 

The  parable  of  the  casting  out  of  the  devils  from 
the  man  possessed  of  an  unclean  spirit  into  the  swine 
is  to  be  found  in  Matthew  VIII.,  28-34;  Mark  V.,  2-20 ; 
Luke  VIIL,  26-39. 

In   the   same   scene   of   The   Merchant   of   Venice 
appears  this  extract: 

When  Jacob  grazed  his  uncle  Laban's  sheep  — 
This  Jacob  from  our  holy  Abram  was. 
As  his  wise  mother  wrought  in  his  behalf, 
The  third  possessor;  ay,  he  was  the  third  — 

Herein  does  Shakespeare  show  how  deep  was  his 
knowledge  of  the  Bible.  Many  persons  fairly  familiar 
with  the  Bible,  might  not,  on  reading  this  passage, 
immediately  place  the  reference,  but  on  examination 
it  is  clearly  s§en  that  the  Dramatist  was  fully  conver- 
sant with  the  story  of  Jacob  and  his  brother  Esau  as 
told  in  the  27th  chapter  of  Genesis.  Abraham  was 
the  first  possessor  under  the  covenant  with  God,  Isaac 
the  second,  and  Esau  would  have  been  the  third  had 

[03] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

it  not  been  for  the  deceit  Rebekah  practiced  upon 
Isaac  in  behalf  of  Jacob,  thereby  causing  the  blessing 
to  go  to  the  second  son,  Jacob,  and  making  him  the 
head  of  the  family,  before  whom  all  the  other  mem- 
bers were  to  bow  down.  Thus  was  Esau,  by  the 
scheming  of  Rebekah,  deprived  of  his  inheritance  and 
made  subserviant  to  his  younger  brother;  and  thus 
did  Jacob,  because  "his  wise  mother  wrought  in  his 
behalf,"  become  "the  third  possessor."  The  story 
which  Shylock  tells  in  this  same  scene  of  Jacob's  bar- 
gain with  his  uncle  Laban  in  reference  to  a  division 
of  the  sheep,  and  how  he  craftily  got  the  better  of  him, 
is  narrated  in  the  30th  chapter  of  Genesis. 
In  the  same  scene  Antonio  says : 

Mark  you  this,  Bassanio, 
The  devil  can  cite  Scripture  for  his  purpose. 

This  is  a  reference  to  the  temptation  of  Christ  by 
Satan  as  narrated  in  Matthew  IV.,  6 : 

If  thou  be  the  son  of  God,  cast  thyself  down: 
for  it  is  written.  He  shall  give  his  angels  charge 
concerning  thee:  and  in  their  hands  they  shall 
bear  thee  up,  lest  at  any  time  thou  dash  thy  foot 
against  a  stone. 

The  passage  cited  by  Satan  is  in  the  XCI.  Psalm, 
11-12 : 

For  he  shall  give  his  angels  charge  over  thee, 
to  keep  thee  in  all  thy  ways. 

They  shall  bear  thee  up  in  their  hands,  lest  thou 
dash  thy  foot  against  a  stone. 

In  Act  IV.  Scene  I.  of  this  same  play  is  that  sweet 

[94] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

appeal  of  Portia's  known  as  the  Quality  of  Mercy 

Speech  wherein  she  says: 

Therefore,  Jew, 
Though  justice  be  thy  plea,  consider  this, — 
That,  in  the  course  of  justice,  none  of  us 
Should  see  salvation;  we  do  pray  for  mercy. 
And  that  same  prayer  doth  teach  us  all  to  render 
The  deeds  of  mercy. 

Shakespeare  here  has  reference  to  the  Lord's 
prayer,  "Forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our 
debtors,"  and  also  to  the  14th  and  15th  verses  of 
the  6th  chapter  of  Matthew  which  immediately  fol- 
low this  prayer: 

For  if  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses,  your 
heavenly  Father  will  forgive  you: 

But  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses, 
neither  will  your  Father  forgive  your  trespasses. 

In  Act  II.  Scene  V.  Shylock  says: 

What  says  that  fool  of  Hagar's  offspring,  ha? 

The    word    Hagar    means    stranger.      She    was    an 

Egyptian    bondmaid    in    the    household    of    Sarah, 

Abraham's  wife,  and  her  story  is  told  in  Genesis 

XVI.— XXI. 

In  Act   IV.    Scene   I.   the   following   reference   is 

made  to  Barabbas  by  Shylock: 

These  be  the  Christian  husbands.    I  have  a  daughter; 

Would  any  of  the  stock  of  Barrabas^ 

Had  been  her  husband  rather  than  a  Christian! 

Barabbas  was  a  noted  robber  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
who  was  in  prison  under  sentence  of  death  for  sedi- 
tion and  murder.  It  was  a  custom  of  the  Roman 
government  to  conciliate  the  Jews  by  releasing  one 

^The  robber's  name  is  thus  spelt  in.  Shakespeare. 

[95] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON   SHAKESPEARE 

Jewish  prisoner  at  the  yearly  Passover,  the  Jews 
being  permitted  to  select  the  prisoner  who  was  to 
be  released.  Pilate  was  anxious  to  release  Jesus, 
but  the  Jews  demanded  that  Barabbas  should  be 
released  and  that  Jesus  should  be  executed  upon  the 
cross.  The  narrative  is  found  in  Matthew  XXVII., 
16-26. 

Thus,  in  one  play,  we  find  eight  important  refer- 
ences to  passages  in  the  Bible,  and  they  are  all  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  prove  that  it  was  not  a  super- 
ficial knowledge  that  Shakespeare  possessed  of  this 
book  of  great  sorrows  and  of  great  joys. 

In  The  Tempest,  Act  III,  Scene  II.,  these  lines  are 
spoken  by  Caliban: 

Yea,  yea,  my  lord:   I'll  yield  him  thee  asleep, 
Where  thou  mayst  knock  a  nail  into  his  head. 

The  story  of  Jael  driving  the  nail  into  the  temples 
of  Sisera,  the  general  of  the  army  of  Jabin,  king 
of  Hazor,  who,  after  being  defeated  by  Barak, 
escaped  on  foot  to  the  tent  of  Jael,  wife  of  Heber, 
the  Kenite,  is  to  be  found  in  Judges  IV,,  17-23.  In 
the  23rd  verse  we  are  told : 

Then  Jael,  Heber's  wife,  took  a  nail  of  the  tent, 
and  took  a  hammer  in  her  hand,  and  went  softly 
into  him  [Sisera],  and  smote  the  nail  into  his 
temples,  and  fastened  it  into  the  ground:  for  he 
was  fast  asleep  and  weary.    So  he  died. 

This  is  the  only  reference  to  the  Bible  that  is  to 
be  found  in  The  Tempest. 

There  are  five  references  in  Hamlet  to  Biblical 
passages. 

[96] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

Act  I.  Scene  II.  contains  the  first  line  in  the 
tragedy  of  Hamlet  that  owes  its  origin  to  the  Bible. 
Hamlet,  dwelling  on  the  circumstances  of  the  death 
of  his  father  and  the  hasty  second  marriage  of  his 
mother,  thus  cries  out : 

0,  that  this  too,  too  solid  flesh  would  melt, 
Thaw,  and  resolve  itself  into  a  dew! 
Or  that  the  Everlasting  had  not  fix'd 
His  canon   'gainst  self-slaughter!     .     .     . 

This  canon  is  to  be  found  in  Exodus  XX.,  13 : 
Thou  shalt  not  kill. 
In  Act  II.  Scene  II.  the  following  dialogue  takes 
place : 

Hamlet.      0  Jephthah,  judge  of  Israel,  what  a 

treasure  hadst  thou ! 
PoLONnjs.     What  a  treasure  had  he,  my  lord? 
Hamlet.       Why 

One  fair  daughter  and  no  more. 

The  which  he  loved  passing  well. 

POLONius  (Aside).  ■  Still  on  my  daughter. 

Hamlet.      Am  I  not  in  the  right,  old  Jephthah? 

PoLONnis.     If  you  call  me  Jephthah,  my  lord,  I 

have  a  daughter  that  I  love  passing 

well. 

In  Judges,  Chapters  XI.  and  XII,,  is  given  the  his- 
tory of  Jephthah,  the  son  of  Gilead,  who  was  a 
Judge  of  Israel  for  six  years.  The  touching  story  of 
his  offering  up  his  only  child,  a  daughter,  as  a  burnt 
offering  to  the  Lord  is  told  in  Judge  XI.,  30-40, 

Hamlet,  in  his  advice  to  the  players,  Act  III.  Scene 
II.,  says: 

I  could  have  such  a  fellow  whipped  for  o'erdoing 
Termagant;  it  out-herods  Herod:  pray  you,  avoid 
it. 

[97] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

There  were  four  princes  of  the  name  of  Herod, 
Idumaeans  by  descent,  who,  under  the  Romans,  gov- 
erned either  the  whole  or  a  part  of  Judea.  It  was 
Herod  the  Great  who  ruled  at  the  time  of  the  birth 
of  Jesus,  and  it  was  by  his  order  that  all  children  of 
two  years  old  and  under,  living  in  Bethlehem,  should 
be  destroyed.  He  was  a  cruel  king,  an  unnatural 
father,  and  an  utterly  odious  man ;  and  Shakespeare 
possibly  had  this  particular  Herod  in  mind  when  he 
penned  the  words  "out-herod  Herod."  The  narra- 
tive is  to  be  found  in  Matthew  II.,  1-17. 

In  Act  V.  Scene  I.  the  two  clowns,  or  grave-dig- 
gers, thus  converse : 

1st  Clown.  There  is  no  ancient  gentlemen  but 
gardeners,  ditchers,  and  grave- 
makers,  they  hold  up  Adam's 
profession. 

2nd  Clown.    Was  he  a  gentleman? 

1st  Clown.     He  was  the  first  that  ever  bore  arms. 

2nd  Clown.    Why,  he  had  none. 

1st  Clown.  What,  art  thou  a  heathen?  How 
dost  thou  understand  the  Scrip- 
ture? The  Scripture  says 
"Adam  digged;"  could  he  djg 
without  arms? 

In  Genesis  III.  is  described  the  temptation  of  Eve 
by  the  serpent  and  the  subsequent  fall  of  herself  and 
Adam,  and  in  the  23rd  verse  is  found  the  passage 
referred  to  by  the  clown : 

Therefore  the  Lord  God  sent  him  [Adam]  forth 
from  the  garden  of  Eden,  to  till  the  ground  from 
whence  he  was  taken. 

[98] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

In  the  same  scene  Hamlet,  in  discussing  the  skull 
cast  up  by  the  clown,  makes  this  remark: 

That  skull  had  a  tongue  in  it,  and  could  sing 
once ;  how  the  knave  jowls  it  to  the  ground,  as  if  it 
were  Cain's  jaw-bone,  that  did  the  tirst  murder. 

The  story  of  the  murder  of  Abel  by  his  brother 
Cain  is  told  in  Genesis  IV,,  3-17.  It  is  stated  that 
the  brothers  brought  offerings  unto  the  Lord,  that 
He  accepted  of  Abel's  but  that  Cain's  did  not  find 
favor  in  His  sight.  Cain  then  rose  against  Abel  and 
slew  him;  thereby  committing  the  first  murder. 

Richard  II.  is  rich  in  references  to  persons  and 
incidents  of  the  Bible.    In  Act  I.  Scene  I.  we  find: 

Which  blood,  like  sacrificing  Abel's,  cries. 
Even  from  the  tongueless  caverns  of  the  eai'th, 
To  me  for  justice,  and  rough  chastisement. 

This  refers  to  the  murder  of  Abel  directly  after 
having  sacrificed  unto  the  Lord,  as  told  in  Genesis 
IV.,  and  particularly  to  the  10th  verse : 

And  he  said,  what  hast  thou  done?  the  voice  of 
thy  brother's  blood  crieth  unto  me  from  the 
ground. 

In  the  same  scene  occurs  this  dialogue : 

Richard.  Rage  must  be  withstood. 

Give  him  his  gage : — Lions  make  leopards  tame. 
Norfolk,    Yea,  but  not  change  his  spots. 

This  expression  is  found  in  Jeremiah  XIH.,  23 : 

Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard 
his  spots? 

In  Act  III.  Scene  II.  of  this  play  Richard  thus 

[09] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

rails  against  the  supposed  traitorous  conduct  of 
three  of  his  lords  : 

0,  villains,  vipers,  damn'd  without  redemption! 
Dogs,  easily  won  to  fawn  on  any  man! 
Snakes  in  my  heart-blood  warm'd,  that  sting  my  heart ! 
Three  Judases,  each  one  thrice  worse  than  Judas! 
Would  they  make  peace?  terrible  hell  make  war 
Upon  their  spotted  souls  for  this  offence. 

The  Judas  referred  to  here  is  Judas  I.,  Iscariot.  The 
story,  in  its  entirety,  is  found  in  Matthew  XXVI., 
XXVII. 

Queen  Isabella,  in  Act  III.  Scene  IV.,  thus  replies 
to  the  gardener  whom  she  has  overheard : 

Thou,  old  Adam's  likeness,  set  to  dress  this  garden. 
How  dares  thy  harsh  rude  tongue  sound  this 

unpleasing  news? 
What  Eve,  what  serpent,  hath  suggested  thee 
To  make  a  second  fall  of  cursed  man  ? 

The  story  of  Eve,  the  serpent,  the  curse  placed 
upon  Adam  by  the  Lord  God,  and  the  fall  of  man  is 
told  in  Genesis  III. 

In  Act  IV.  Scene  I.,  Bolingbroke,  speaking  of  the 
death  of  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  says : 

Sweet  peace  conduct  his  sweet  soul  to  the  bosom 
Of  good  Old  Abraham ! 

In  Luke  XVI.,  22  it  is  stated  that  Lazarus  was  car- 
ried to  Abraham's  bosom,  or  to  a  state  of  heavenly 
felicity  in  that  paradise  to  which  the  soul  of  the 
father  of  the  faithful  had  departed: 

And  it  came  to  pass,  that  the  begger  died,  and 
was  carried  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom: 
the  rich  man  also  died,  and  was  buried. 

[100] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

A  little  further  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  speaking 
in  behalf  of  Richard  and  prophesying  what  the 
result  will  be  in  case  the  lords  persist  in  their  deter- 
mination to  depose  their  lawful  king  and  crown 
Bolingbroke  in  his  place,  thus  refers  to  the  spot 
where  Christ  was  crucified : 

Disorder,  horror,  fear  and  mutiny, 
Shall  here  inhabit,  and  this  land  be  call'd 
The  field  of  Golgotha,  and  dead  men's  skulls. 

Golgotha,  which  is  the  Hebrew  word  for  Calvary, 
means  the  place  of  a  skull  or  a  place  shaped  like  a 
skull,  and  was  the  scene  of  the  crucifying  of  Christ. 
Matthew  XXVII.,  33-51. 

In  the  same  scene  Richard,  on  being  sent  for  to 
surrender  his  crown  to  Bolingbroke,  thus  bewails 
the  treachery  of  his  nobles : 

Yet  I  well  remember 
The  favors  of  these  men:    Were  they  not  mine? 
Did  they  not  sometime  cry.  All  hail!  to  me? 
So  Judas  did  to  Christ:    but  He,  in  twelve, 
Found  truth  in  all  but  one ;  I,  in  twelve  thousand,  none. 

The  story  of  Judas  and  his  betrayal  of  his  Lord  is 
in  Matthew  XXVI.,  XXVII. 

A  little  further  in  the  scene  is  found  this  refer- 
ence: 

Nay,  all  of  you,  that  stand  and  look  upon  me. 
Whilst  that  my  wretchedness  doth  bait  myself, — 
Though  some  of  you,  with  Pilate,  wash  your  hands. 
Showing  an  outward  pity;  yet  you  Pilates 
Have  here  delivered  me  to  my  sour  cross. 
And  water  cannot  wash  away  your  sin. 

In  the  27th  chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  24th 
verse,  it  is  said : 

[101] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

When  Pilate  saw  that  he  could  prevail  nothing, 
but  that  rather  a  tumult  was  made,  he  took  water, 
and  washed  his  hands  before  the  multitude,  saying, 
I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  just  person: 
see  ye  to  it. 

In  Act  V.  Scene  V.,  is  this  passage : 

The  better  sort, 
As  thoughts  of  things  divine,  are  intermix'd 
With  scruples,  and  do  set  the  word  itself 
Against  the  word : 

As  thus, — "Come,  little  ones ;"  and  then  again, — 
"It  is  as  hard  to  come,  as  for  a  camel 
To  thread  the  postern  of  a  needle's  eye." 

Richard  is  here  contrasting  one  passage  of  Holy 
Writ  against  another.  It  is  stated  in  Matthew  XIX. 
that  when  little  children  were  brought  unto  Christ 
that  he  might  lay  his  hands  on  them,  they  were 
rebuked  by  the  disciples,  and  that  Jesus  said: 

Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to 
come  unto  me;  for  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  —  Matthew  XIX.,  14. 

In  the  24th  verse  of  the  same  chapter  we  find : 

It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God. 

This  is  what  Richard  terms  "set  the  word  against 
the  word."  The  invitation  to  come  is  given,  and 
then,  he  says,  we  are  told  that  it  is  an  impossibility 
for  us  to  do  so.  He,  of  course,  loses  sight  of  the 
fact  that  the  Scriptures  state  that  the  impossibility 
attaches  to  the  rich  man,  and  the  invitation  to  come 
is  extended  to  the  children. 

[102] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

Bolingbroke,  Act  V.  Scene  VI.,  after  he  has  been 
informed  of  the  murder  of  Richard,  thus  addresses 
Sir  Pierce  of  Exton,  the  murderer: 

The  guilt  of  conscience  take  thou  for  thy  labor, 
But  neither  my  good  word  nor  princely  favor: 
With  Cain  go  wander  through  the  shades  of  night, 
And  never  show  thy  head  by  day  nor  light. 

Cain's  banishment  from  the  garden  of  Eden  is  told 
in  Genesis  IV.,  11-12 : 

And  now  art  thou  cursed  from  the  earth,  which 
hath  opened  her  mouth  to  receive  thy  brother's 
blood  from  thy  hand. 

When  thou  tillest  the  ground,  it  shall  not  hence- 
forth yield  unto  thee  her  strength;  a  fugitive  and 
a  vagabond  shalt  thou  be  in  the  earth. 

Here  we  have  ten  references  in  one  play  to  pass- 
ages and  persons  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  and  col- 
lectively they  show  a  deep  insight  into  its  contents. 

In  Love's  Labor's  Lost  there  are  brief  references 
to  Adam  (Act  IV.  Scene  11.) ,  Eve  (Act  I.  Scene  I.), 
Cain  (Act  IV.  Scene  II.),  Solomon  (Act  I.  Scene 
II.),  Judas  (Act  V.  Scene  II.)  ;  and  in  Act  I.  Scene 
II.  is  the  following  mention  of  an  event  in  the  life 
of  Samson : 

Samson,  master :  he  was  a  man  of  good  carriage, 
great  carriage !  for  he  carried  the  town-gates  on  his 
back,  like  a  porter;  and  he  was  in  love. 

In  Judges  XIV.,  3-4  we  find : 

And  Samson  lay  till  midnight,  and  arose  at  mid- 
night, and  took  the  doors  of  the  gate  of  the  city, 
and  the  two  posts,  and  went  away  with  them,  bar 
and  all,  and  put  them  upon  his  shoulders,  and  car- 

[103] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

ried  them  up  to  the  top  of  a  hill  that  is  before 
Hebron. 

And  it  came  to  pass  afterward,  that  he  loved  a 
woman  in  the  valley  of  the  Sorek,  whose  name  was 
Delilah. 

As  You   Like   It    (Act   I.    Scene  I.)    contains  this 
reference  to  the  parable  of  The  Prodigal  Son: 

Shall  I  keep  your  hogs,  and  eat  husks  with  them? 
What  prodigal  portion  have  I  spent,  that  I  should 
come  to  such  penury? 

The  Parable  is  in  Luke  XV.,  11-32. 

In  Act  II.  Scene  III.  Adam,  on  offering  his  sav- 
ings to  Orlando,  says : 

Take  that;  and  He  that  doth  the  ravens  feed, 
Yea  providently  caters  for  the  sparrow, 
Be  comfort  to  my  age ! 

This  was  no  doubt  suggested  by  Psalm  CXLVII.,  9 : 

He  giveth  to  the  beast  his  food,  and  to  the  young 
ravens  which  cry. 

In  the  same  play  are  mentioned  Adam  (Act  II. 
Scene  I.),  the  Ark  (Act  V.  Scene  IV.),  and  Judas 
(Act  IIL  Scene  IV.). 

The  Comedy  of  Errors  contains  allusions  to  the 
Flood  (Act  III.  Scene  II.),  Adam  (Act  IV.  Scene 
IIL),  The  Prodigal  Son   (Act  IV.  Scene  III.). 

In  Anthony  and  Cleopatra  Herod  is  spoken  of 
four  times:  Act  I.  Scene  II.,  Act  IIL  Scene  IIL, 
Act  IIL  Scene  VI.  In  Act  III.  Scene  XL  Antony 
says: 

0,  that  I  were 
Upon  the  hill  of  Basan,^  —  to  outroar 

'^  Bashan  (fat,  fruitful),  a  rich  hilly  district  lying  east  of  the  Jordan. 

[104] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

The  horned  herd!  for  I  have  savage  cause; 
And  to  proclaim  it  civilly,  were  like 
A  halter'd  neck,  which   does  the  hangman   thank 
For  being  yare*  about  him. 

Antony  here  is  railing  against  being  made  a  sacri- 
fice by  Cleopatra  unto  Octavius  Caesar,  and  has  in 
mind  the  offering  up  of  the  cattle  as  a  sacrifice  at 
Bashan,  the  horned  herd  roaring  against  the  slaugh- 
ter, which  is  thus  stated  in  Ezekiel  XXXIX.,  18 : 

Ye  shall  eat  the  flesh  of  the  mighty,  and  drink 
the  blood  of  the  princes  of  the  earth,  of  rams,  of 
lambs,  and  of  goats,  of  bullocks,  all  of  them  fat- 
lings  of  Bashan. 

In  Macbeth  there  is  but  one  direct  Biblical  refer- 
ence, and  that  is  to  Golgotha,  in  Act  I.  Scene  II., 
where  the  soldier,  speaking  of  the  contest  between 
the  loyal  and  the  rebel  armies,  says : 

If  I  say  sooth,  I  must  report  they  were 

As  cannons  overcharged  with  double  cracks: 

So  they  doubly  redoubled  strokes  upon  the  foe: 

Except  they  meant  to  bathe  in  reeking  wounds, 

Or  memorize  another  Golgotha, 

I  cannot  tell. 

This  reference  to  Golgotha  was  to  emphasize  the 
terrors  of  the  battle,  and  to  make  clear  the  deter- 
mination of  Banquo  and  Macbeth  to  pile  up  the 
skulls  of  their  enemies  until  the}^  formed  a  mount. 
"While  in  Othello  there  are  several  expressions  that 
might  owe  their  origin  to  the  Bible,  there  is  but  one 
that  is  direct.  This  is  the  remark  of  Othello  to 
Emilia,  Act  IV.  Scene  II.,  wherein  he  accuses  her  of 
holding  the  keys  to  the  gate  of  hell. 

*  That  is,   ready,   nimble,   active. 

[105] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

You,  mistress, 
That  have  the  office  opposite  Saint  Peter, 
And  keep  the  gate  of  hell ;  you,  you,  ay,  you ! 

Saint  Peter  is  supposed  to  hold  the  keys  to  the 
gate  of  heaven,  consequently  the  one  who  occupies 
**the  office  opposite"  to  him — that  is,  the  office  op- 
posed to  the  office  of  the  Saint  as  the  keeper  of  the 
keys  of  heaven — must  be  the  keeper  of  the  keys  of  hell. 
The  Bible  account  of  the  bestowal  of  the  keys  of 
heaven  upon  Peter  is  as  follows : 

And  I  give  unto  thee  [Peter]  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven:  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven ;  and  what- 
soever thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven. 

This  reference  is  to  be  found  in  Matthew  XVI.,  19. 
In  Measure  for  Measure,  Act  I.  Scene  II.,  Claudio 
thus  speaks : 

The  words  of  Heaven; — on  whom  it  will,  it  willj 
On  whom  it  will  not,  so ;  yet  still  'tis  just. 

Allusion  is  here  made  to  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  IX.,  15: 

For  he  saith  to  Moses,  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom 
I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on 
whom  I  will  have  compassion. 

Also  in  the  same  chapter,  verse  18: 

Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
mercy,  and  whom  be  will  he  hardeneth. 

In  Act  II.  Scene  II.  of  the  same  play  we  find  this 

dialogue : 

Isabel.     Hark,  how  I'll  bribe  you :   Good  my  lord, 
turn  back. 

[106] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

Angelo.  How!     Bribe  me? 
Isabel.    Ay,  with  such  gifts  that  Heaven  shall 
share  with  you. 

Not  with  fond  shekels  of  the  tested  gold, 
Or  stones,  whose  rates  are  either  rich  or  poor 
As  fancy  values  them :  but  with  true  prayers, 
That  shall  be  up  at  heaven,  and  enter  there, 
Ere  sunrise;  prayers  from  preserved  souls. 
From  fasting  maids,  whose  minds  are  dedicate 
To  nothing  temporal. 

Angelo.  Well :   come  to  me 

Tomorrow. 

Isabel.  Heaven  keep  your  honor  safe! 

Angelo.  .  (Aside)  Amen; 

For  I  am  that  way  going  to  temptation, 
Where  prayers  cross. 

When  Isabella  says  ''Heaven  keep  your  honor  safe," 
she  is  addressing  Angelo  according  to  his  title;  but 
his  guilty  mind  sees  in  it  reference  to  the  danger  his 
honor  is  in,  and  he  says  amen  to  her  pious  saluta- 
tion. In  the  Lord's  Prayer  is  the  petition,  "Lead  us 
not  into  temptation,"  and  Angelo  knows  that  in 
making  an  appointment  to  meet  Isabella  on  the  mor- 
rovr  he  is  going  directly  in  the  path  of  temptation, 
and  in  doing  this,  he  is  travelling  in  a  direction  that 
is  crossed  or  intercepted  by  the  prayer.  This  causes 
him  to  say: 

For  I  am  that  way  going  to  temptation, 
Where  prayers  cross. 
The  Lord's  Prayer  is  to  be  found  in  Matthew  VI,, 

9-13,  and  Luke  XI.,  2-4. 

A  little  further  in  the  same  scene  Angelo  solilo- 
quizes thus  regarding  his  base  passion  for  the  pure 
Isabella  : 

[107] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Can  it  be 
That  modesty  may  more  betray  our  sense 
Than  woman's  lightness?   Having  waste  ground  enough, 
Shall  we  desire  to  raise  the  sanctuary, 
And  pitch  our  evils  there? 

In  Eastern  countries  it  was  the  custom  to  treat  with 
abomination  the  houses  of  worship  of  those  who 
differed  with  the  parties  in  power,  thus  desecrating 
them  and  mortifying  the  worshippers.  In  II,  Kings 
X.,  it  is  stated  that  when  Jehu  wished  to  destroy 
the  worshippers  of  Baal  he  caused  them  to  gather  in 
the  temple  dedicated  to  his  worship  and  there  com- 
manded them  to  be  slain.  Not  content  with  the  de- 
struction of  the  worshippers  he  caused  the  temple 
to  be  desecrated  as  told  in  the  27th  verse : 

And  they  brake  down  the  image  of  Baal,  and 
brake  the  house  of  Baal,  and  made  it  a  draught 
house  unto  this  day. 

The  word  draught,  meaning  a  cess-pool  or  recepta- 
cle for  filth,  signifies  how  Jehu  showed  his  contempt 
for  Baal. 

In  Act  II.  Scene  III.  the  Duke,  speaking  to  the 
Provost,  refers  to  the  "spirits  in  prison"  thus: 

Bound  by  my  charity,  and  my  bless'd  order, 
I  come  to  visit  the  afflicted  spirits 
Here  in  the  prison. 

The  reference  here  is  to  I.  Peter  III.,  19,  where,  after 
speaking  of  the  suffering  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of 
the  unjust,  it  is  written: 

By  which  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the 
spirits  in  prison. 

[108] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

In  Much  Ado  About  Nothing  there  are  three  un- 
important references  to  Biblical  characters :  St. 
Peter  and  Adam  in  Act  II.  Scene  I,,  and  Pharaoh  in 
Act  III.  Scene  III. 

The  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.  contains  a  few  im- 
portant references  that  may  be  traced  to  the  Bible. 
In  Act  I.  Scene  II.  we  find  Prince  Henry  saying  to 
Falstaff : 

Thou  didst  well;  for  wisdom  cries  out  in  the 
streets,  and  no  man  regards  it. 

In  Proverbs  I.,  20  is  the  following: 

Wisdom  crieth  without;  she  uttereth  her  voice 
in  the  streets. 

The  24th  verse  of  the  same  chapter  is: 

Because  I  have  called,  and  ye  refused:  I  have 
stretched  out  my  hand,  and  no  man  regarded. 

In  Act  II.  Scene  IV.  Falstaff  uses  this  expression : 

If  to  be  fat  be  to  be  hated,  then  Pharaoh's  lean 
kine  are  to  be  loved. 

The  story  of    Pharaoh's    kine  is    told    in    Genesis 
XLI.,  1-4 : 

And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  two  full  years, 
that  Pharaoh  dreamed:  and,  behold,  he  stood  by 
the  river. 

And,  behold,  there  came  up  out  of  the  river  seven 
well  favoured  kine  and  fat  fleshed ;  and  they  fed  in 
a  meadow. 

And,  behold,  seven  other  kine  came  up  after  them 
out  of  the  river,  ill  favoured  and  lean  fleshed ;  and 
stood  by  the  other  kine  upon  the  brink  of  the 
river. 

And  the  ill  favoured  and  lean  fleshed  kine  did 

[109] 


SIDELIGHTS  ON  SHAKESPEARE 

eat  up  the  seven  well  favoured  and  fat  kine.     So 
Pharaoh  awoke. 

In  the  same  act  and  scene,  and  also  in  Act  III. 
Scene  III.,  Adam  is  casually  mentioned. 

In  Act  III.  Scene  III.  Falstaff,  addressing  Bar- 
dolph,  uses  this  expression: 

I  never  see  thy  face,  but  I  think  upon  hell-fire, 
and  Dives  that  lived  in  purple. 

And    in    Act    IV.    Scene    II.    Falstaff    uses    these 

words : 

.  .  .  and  now  my  whole  charge  consists  of 
ancients,  corporals,  lieutenants,  gentlemen  of  com- 
panies, slaves  as  ragged  as  Lazarus  in  the  painted 
cloth,  where  the  glutton's  dogs  licked  the  sores. 

The  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus  is  told  in  Luke 
XVI.,  19-31;  the  passage  referred  to  by  Falstafl 
being  verses  20  and  21 : 

And  there  was  a  certain  begger  named  Lazarus, 
which  was  laid  at  his  gate,  full  of  sores, 

And  desiring  to  be  fed  with  the  crumbs  which 
fell  from  the  rich  man's  table:  moreover  the  dogs 
came  and  licked  his  sores. 

In  the  same  speech  is  found  the  following: 

.  .  .  and  such  have  I,  to  fill  up  the  rooms 
of  them  that  have  bought  out  their  services,  that 
you  would  think,  that  I  had  a  hundred  and  fifty 
tatter'd  prodigals,  lately  come  from  swine-keeping, 
from  eating  draff*  and  husks.     .     .     . 

The  Parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  is  in  Luke  XV., 
11-32;  the  portion  referred  to  by  Falstaff  being 
verses  15  and  16: 

*  Refuse  grain  from  breweries  and  distilleries. 

[110] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

And  he  went  and  joined  himself  to  a  citizen  of 
that  country ;  and  he  sent  him  into  his  fields  to  feed 
swine. 

And  he  would  fain  have  filled  his  belly  with  the 
husks  that  the  swine  did  eat:  and  no  man  gave 
unto  him. 

The  Second  Part  of  Henry  IV.  is  rich  in  Biblical 

references.    In  Act  I.  Scene  I.  Northumberland  says : 

Let  heaven  kiss  earth:    now  let  not  nature's  hand 
Keep  the  wild  flood  confin'd:    let  order  die: 
And  let  this  world  no  longer  be  a  stage, 
To  feed  contention  in  a  lingering  act; 
But  let  one  spirit  of  the  first-born  Cain 
Reign  in  all  bosoms,  that,  each  heart  being  set 
On  bloody  courses,  the  rude  scene  may  end. 
And  darkness  be  the  burier  of  the  dead ! 

How  murder  entered  the  heart  of  Cain  and  caused 

him  to  kill  his  brother  Abel  is  told  in  Genesis  IV., 

verse  8,  stating: 

And  Cain  talked  with  Abel  his  brother:  and  it 
came  to  pass,  when  they  were  in  the  field,  that  Cain 
rose  up  against  Abel  his  brother,  and  slew  him. 

In  Scene  II.  of  the  same  act  we  find: 

Let  him  be  damn'd  like  the  glutton!  may  his 
tongue  be  hotter! 

This  alludes  to  the  rich  man  who  feasted  and  drank 
daily ;  who  finally  died,  thirsted  for  a  drop  of  water, 
and  prayed  that  Lazarus  might  be  permitted  to 
bring  it  to  him.  The  account  is  found  in  Luke  XVI., 
20-31.     The  particular  passage  being  verse  24: 

And  he  cried  and  said.  Father  Abraham,  have 
mercy  on  me,  and  send  Lazarus,  that  he  may  dip 
the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water,  and  cool  my  tongue; 
for  I  am  tormented  in  this  flame. 

[Ill] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

A  little  further  in  the  same  scene  is  found  this 
reference : 

I   am   as   poor   as   Job,   mj^   lord,   but   not   so 
patient. 

The  story  of  Job,  his  wealth  and  happiness,  his  trials 
and  tribulations,  his  losses  and  his  pains,  his  poverty 
and  his  patience,  is  told  in  the  Book  of  Job. 

In  the  same  speech,  Falstaff  applies  the  term  Achi- 
tophel  to  the  tailor  Dumbleton  on  being  informed  by 
his  page  that  he  has  refused  him  credit.  The  Bib- 
lical character  whom  Falstaff  had  in  mind  was 
Ahithophel,  a  native  of  Giloh,  a  near  friend  to  David, 
who,  however,  became  his  bitter  enemy  and  joined 
Absalom  when  that  young  prince  rose  in  rebellion 
against  his  father.  The  narrative  is  to  be  found  in 
II.  Samuel  XV.,  XVI.,  XVII. 

Lord  Scroop,  Archbishop  of  York,  in  Act  I.  Scene 
III.,  uses  this  language : 

So,  so,  thou  common  dog,  didst  thou  disgorge 
Thy  glutton  bosom  of  the  royal  Richard; 
And  now  thou  wouldst  eat  thy  dead  vomit  up, 
And  howl'st  to  find  it. 

In  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  II.,  22,  those  who 

turned  from  righteousness  are  thus  likened  unto  the 

dog: 

But  it  is  happened  unto  them  according  to  the 
true  proverb,  The  dog  is  turned  to  his  own  vomit      e 
again. 

A  reference  to  the  story  of  the  Prodigal  Son  is 
found  in  Act  II.  Scene  I.  The  parable  is  in  Luke 
Xy.,  11-32. 

[112] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

In  Act  II.  Scene  II.  Prince  Henry  says: 

Nay,  they  will  be  kin  to  us,  or  they  will  fetch  it 
from  Japhet. 

Japhet  is  no  doubt  used  for  Japheth,  and  Henry  must 
have  had  in  mind  the  meaning  of  the  word,  which  is 
enlargement,  when  he  referred  to  those  who  claimed 
kindred  with  the  king.  The  passage  in  the  Bible 
to  which  the  reference  of  Prince  Henry  applies  is  in 
Genesis  IX.,  27 : 

God  shall  enlarge  Japheth,  and  he  shall  dwell  in 
the  tents  of  Shem. 

A  reference  is  made  to  David  in  Act  III.  Scene  II. 
in  the  following  words  spoken  by  Shallow : 

Certain,  'tis  certain ;  ven,'  sure ;  very  sure ;  death, 
as  the  Psalmist  saith,  is  certain  to  all;  all  shall 
die. 

David  sings  of  the  shortness  and  vanity  of  life  in 
Psalm  XXXIX.,  of  death  and  the  vanity  of 
worldly  possessions  in  Psalm  XLIX.,  and  in  Psalm 
LXXXIX.,  47-48,  he  cries  out : 

Remember  how  short  my  time  is :  wherefore  hast 
thou  made  all  men  in  vain? 

What  man  is  he  that  liveth,  and  shall  not  see 
death?  shall  he  deliver  his  soul  from  the  hand  of  the 
grave?    Selah. 

Henry  V.  contains  six  Biblical  references,  three 
neither  novel  nor  extensive  in  application :  a  refer- 
ence to  Adam,  Act  I.  Scene  I. ;  The  fall  of  man,  Act 
II.  Scene  II. ;  Return  to  vomit.  Act  III.  Scene  VII. ; 
and  three  of  considerable  importance:  The  Book  of 

[113] 


SIDELIGHTS  ON  SHAKESPEAEE 

Numbers  quoted,  Act  I.  Scene  II.;  reference  to  the 
Devil,  Act  II.  Scene  II.;  and  to  Herod,  Act  III. 
Scene  III. 

The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Act  I.  Scene  II., 
advising  King  Henry  as  to  his  rights  in  France, 
quotes  the  Bible  as  an  authority  to  uphold  the  stand 
he  advises  the  king  to  take : 

For  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  it  is  writ, — 
When  the  son  dies,  let  the  inheritance 
Descend  unto  the  daughter. 

The  passage  referred  to  is  in  the  Book  of  Numbers 
XXVIL,  8: 

And  thou  shalt  speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
sajdng.  If  a  man  die,  and  have  no  son,  then  ye 
shall  cause  his  inheritance  to  pass  unto  his  daugh- 
ter. 

King  Henry,  in  reproving  Lord  Scroop  for  his 
treachery.  Act  II.  Scene  II.,  speaks  thus: 

If  that  same  demon,  that  hath  gull'd  thee  thus, 
Should  with  his  lion  gait  walk  the  whole  world, 
He  might  return  to  vast  Tartar  back. 
And  tell  the  legions  —  I  can  never  win 
A  soul  so  easy  as  that  Englishman's. 

The  passage  that  suggested  the  idea  of  ' '  demon  with 
his  lion  gait"  is  in  I.  Peter  V.,  8 : 

Be  sober,  be  vigilant;  because  your  adversary 
the  devil,  as  a  roaring  lion,  walketh  about,  seeking 
whom  he  may  devour. 

In  addressing  the  Governor  of  Harfleur,  and  ad- 
vising him  to  surrender  to  the  English,  among 
other  dire  consequences  that  will  befall  the  inhabi- 

[114] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

tants  unless  his  counsel  is  followed,  King  Henry,  in 
Act  ni.  Scene  III.,  mentions  this: 

Your  naked  infants  spitted  upon  pikes, 
While  the  mad  mothers  with  their  howls  confus'd 
Do  break  the  clouds,  as  did  the  wives  of  Jewry 
At  Herod's  bloody-hunting  slaughtermen. 

The  story  of  the  massacre  of  children  by  order  of 
King  Herod  is  told  in  Matthew  II.,  the  particular 
passage  to  which  King  Henry  refers  being  in  verses 
16-18 : 

Then  Herod,  when  he  saw  that  he  was  mocked 
of  the  wise  men,  was  exceeding  wroth,  and  sent 
forth,  and  slew  all  the  children  that  were  in  Beth- 
lehem, and  in  all  the  coasts  thereof,  from  two 
years  old  and  under,  according  to  the  time  which 
he  had  diligently  inquired  of  the  wise  men. 

Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  of  by 
Jeremy  the  prophet,  saying, 

In  Rama  was  there  a  voice  heard,  lamentation, 
and  weeping,  and  great  mourning,  Rachel  weeping 
for  her  children,  and  would  not  be  comforted, 
because  they  are  not. 

The  Historical  plays  abound  in  Biblical  references, 
the  seven  Henries  containing  no  less  than  thirty-six. 
In  The  First  Part  of  Henry  VI.,  Act  I.  Scene  II., 
mention  is  made  of  Samsons  and  Goliases  (Goliaths) 
for  expressing  the  prowess  of  the  English: 

For  none  but  Samsons  and  Goliases 

It  sendeth  forth  to  skirmish.    One  to  ten! 

Lean  raw-boned  rascals!  who  would  e'er  suppose 

They  had  such  courage  and  audacity? 

The  story  of  Samson  displaying  his  great  strength  in 
battle  is  told  in  Judges  XV.,  the  15th  verse,  stating: 

[115] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

And  he  [Samson]  found  a  new  jawbone  of  an 
ass  and  put  forth  his  hand,  and  took  it,  and  slew 
a  thousand  men  therewith. 

The  fighting  qualities  of  Goliath,  a  giant  of  Gath, 
supposed  to  have  been  nine  feet  and  a  half  in  height, 
are  depicted  in  I.  Samuel  XVII.,  the  24th  verse  tell- 
ing how  the  men  of  Israel  feared  him: 

And  all  the  men  of  Israel,  when  they  saw  the 
man  [Goliath],  fled  from  him,  and  were  sore  afraid. 

In  the  same  scene  are  these  lines: 

Stay,  stay  thy  hands!  thou  art  an  Amazon, 
And  flghtest  with  the  sword  of  Deborah. 

Deborah  was  a  prophetess,  and  she  judged  the 
people  of  Israel.  The  narrative  is  in  Judges  IV., 
4-24.  It  was  she  who  prevailed  upon  Barak  to  arm 
and  go  against  Sisera;  urging  him  by  her  counsel 
and  strengthening  him  with  her  courage.  In  verses 
8-9  it  is  stated: 

And  Barak  said  unto  her.  If  thou  wilt  go  with 
me,  then  will  I  go :  but  if  thou  wilt  not  go  with  me, 
then  I  will  not  go. 

And  she  said,  I  will  surely  go  with  thee:  not- 
withstanding the  journey  that  thou  takest  shall  not 
be  for  thine  honour;  for  the  Lord  shall  sell  Sisera 
into  the  hand  of  a  woman.  And  Deborah  arose, 
and  went  with  Barak  to  Kedesh. 

A  little  further  we  find  the  following: 

Was  Mahomet  inspired  with  a  dove? 
Thou  with  an  eagle  art  inspired  then. 
Helen,  the  mother  of  great  Constantine, 
Nor  yet  St.  Philip's  daughters,  were  like  thee. 

[116] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

This  mention  of  St.  Philip's  daughters  was  no  doubt 
prompted  by  Acts  XXI.,  9 : 

And  the  same  man  [Philip  the  evangelist]  had 
four  daughters,  virgins,  which  did  prophesy. 

In  Scene  III.  of  the  same  act  Cardinal  Beaufort, 
addressing  the  Duke  of  Gloucester,  speaks  thus: 

This  be  Damascus,  be  thou  cursed  Cain, 
To  slay  thy  brother  Abel,  if  thou  wilt. 

Shakespeare  apparently  had  in  mind  the  old  Chroni- 
cles which  stated  that  Damascus  was  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden,  and  upon  the  very  spot  where  Cain  slew 
Abel.  In  The  Travels  of  Sir  John  Mandeville  it  is 
stated : 

In   that  place   where   Damascus   was   founded, 
Kayn  sloughe  Abel  his  brother. 

The  story  of  the  first  murder  is  told  in  Genesis  IV., 
the  8th  verse  reading: 

And  Cain  talked  with  Abel  his  brother:  and 
it  came  to  pass,  when  they  were  in  the  field,  that 
Cain  rose  up  against  Abel  his  brother,  and  slew 
him. 

A  few  speeches  further  Gloucester  thus  addresses 
himself  to  Cardinal  Beaufort: 

Thee  I'll  chase  hence  thou  wolf  in  sheep's  ar- 
ray. 

In  Matthew  VII.,  15,  Jesus  says: 

Beware  of  false  prophets,  which  come  to  you  in 
sheep's  clothing,  but  inwardly  they  are  ravening 
wolves. 

[117] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

The  Second  Part  of  Henry  VI.  possesses  four 
thoughts  the  sources  of  which  may  be  traced  to  the 
Bible.  In  Act  II.  Scene  I.  King  Henry  thus  reproves 
his  queen  for  encouraging  the  quarrels  of  the  nobles : 

I  pr'y  thee,  peace 
Good  queen!  and  whet  not  on  these  furious  peers, 
For  blessed  are  the  peacemakers  on  earth. 

The  seventh  Beatitude,  Matthew  V.,  9,  is  thus: 

Blessed  are  the  peacemakers:    for  they  shall  be 
called  the  children  of  God. 

Cardinal  Beaufort,  replying  to  the  threat  of  the 
Duke  of  Gloucester,  Act  II.  Scene  I.,  advises  him  in 
these  words: 

Medice,  teipsum: 
Protector,  see  to't  well,  protect  yourself. 

Medice,   teipsum    (Physician,    thyself.)    comes    from 
Luke  IV.,  23: 

Physician,  heal  thyself. 

In  Scene  III.  of  this  act  King  Henry,  addressing 
those  found  guilty  of  practicing  witchcraft  against 
his  person,  speaks  thus: 

Receive  the  sentence  of  the  law,  for  sins 
Such  as  by  God's  Book  are  adjudg'd  to  death. 

The  Bible,  Exodus  XXII.,   18,   contains  this   com- 
mand: 

Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a  witch  to  live. 

The  final  Biblical  reference  in  this  play  is  in  Act 
IV.  Scene  II.  where  Cade,  replying  to  the  taunts  of 
Sir  Humphrey  Stafford,   answers  him  thus: 
And  Adam  was  a  gardener. 
[118] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

We  are  told  in  Genesis  III.,  22-23,  that  after  Adam 
had  eaten  of  the  tree  of  knowledge,  God  rebuked 
him,  saying : 

Behold,  the  man  is  become  one  of  us,  to  know 
good  and  evil :  and  now,  lest  he  put  forth  his  hand, 
and  take  also  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat  and  live 
for  ever: 

Therefore  the  Lord  God  sent  him  forth  from  the 
garden  of  Eden,  to  till  the  ground  from  whence 
he  was  taken. 

The  Third  Part  of  Henry  VI.  contains  only  three 
Biblical  references,  but  all  of  them  are  important. 
In  Act  V.  Scene  I.  Clarence,  on  deciding  to  be  false 
to  the  oath  he  made  to  Warwick,  thus  expresses 
himself : 

Why,  trow'st  thou,  Warwick, 
That  Clarence  is  so  harsh,  so  blunt,  unnatural, 
To  bend  the  fatal  instruments  of  war 
Against  his  brother,  and  his  lawful  king? 
Perhaps  thou  wilt  object  my  holy  oath : 
To  keep  that  oath  were  more  impiety 
Than  Jephtha's  when  he  sacrific'd  his  daughter. 

The  pathetic  story  is  told  in  Judges  XI.,  30-31 : 

And  Jephthah  vowed  a  vow  unto  the  Lord,  and 
said,  If  thou  shalt  without  fail  deliver  the  children 
of  Ammon  into  mine  hands. 

Then  it  shall  be,  that  whatsoever  cometh  forth 
of  the  doors  of  my  house  to  meet  me,  when  I  return 
in  peace  from  the  children  of  Ammon,  shall  surely 
be  the  Lord's,  and  I  will  offer  it  up  for  a  burnt 
offering. 

In  the  second  scene  of  the  same  act  Warwick, 

wounded  unto  death,  speaks  these  lines: 

Thus  yields  the  cedar  to  the  axe's  edge. 
Whose  arms  gave  shelter  to  the  princely  eagle, 

[119] 


SIDELIGHTS  ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Under  whose  shade  the  ramping  lion  slept ; 
Whose  top-branch  overpeer'd  Jove's  spreading  tree, 
And  kept  low  shrubs  from  winter's  powerful  wind, 

A  passage  like  unto  this  is  found  in  Ezekiel 
XXXI.,  6 : 

All  the  fowls  of  heaven  made  their  nests  in  his 
boughs,  and  under  his  branches  did  all  the  beasts 
of  the  field  bring  forth  their  young,  and  under  his 
shadow  dwelt  all  great  nations. 

The  entire  speech  of  Warwick's  indicates  that 
Shakespeare  drew  upon  the  w^hole  31st  chapter  of 
Ezekiel  for  his  inspiration,  for  as  Warwick  likens 
himself  unto  the  cedar  yielded  to  the  axe's  edge, 
so  also  is  the  Assyrian  likened  unto  the  cedar  of 
Lebanon,  with  its  fair  branches  and  towering  form, 
by  the  Lord  when  instructing  His  prophet  Ezekiel. 
In  the  last  scene  of  this  play  Gloucester,  after 
kissing  his  nephew,  the  young  Prince  of  Wales,  turns 
aside  and  mutters : 

To  say  the  truth,  so  Judas  kissed  his  master. 
And  cried  all  hail  whereas  he  meant,  all  harm. 

The  betrayal  of  Christ  by  Judas  is  told  in  Matthew 
XXVI.,  45-54;  verse  49  being  the  particular  one  re- 
ferred to  by  Gloucester: 

And  forthwith  he  came  to  Jesus,  and  said.  Hail, 
Master;  and  kissed  him. 

Richard   III.   contains  many   important    Biblical 
references,  indicative  of  the  Poet's  vast  knowledge 

[120] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

of  Holy  Writ.  In  Act  I.  Scene  III.  Lord  Rivers  thui 
replies  to  the  Duke  of  Gloucester : 

A  virtuous  and  a  Christian-like  conclusion, 
To  pray  for  them  that  have  done  seath^  to  us. 

The  passage  in  Scripture  that  suggested  this  re- 
mark is  in  Matthew  V,,  44: 

But  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  bless 
them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you, 
and  pray  for  them  which  despitefully  use  you,  and 
persecute  you. 

When  arguing  with  the  murderers  as  to  the  jus- 
"tice  of  the  sentence  of  death  which  they  propose  to 
carry  out  upon  him,  the  Duke  of  Clarence,  In  Act 
I.   Scene   IV.,   thus   addresses   them: 

Erroneous  vassels!  the  great  King  of  kings 
Hath  in  the  table  of  His  Law  commanded. 
That  thou  shalt  do  no  murder. 

The  table  of  the  Law,  the  ten  commandments  given 
by  God  through  Moses  to  the  children  of  Israel,  is 
in  Exodus  XX.,  3-17 ;  verse  13,  the  sixth  command- 
ment, reading : 

Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

In  Act  I.  Scene  IV.  of  this  tragedy  the  1st  Mur- 
derer makes  use  of  the  expression : 

Right;  as  snow  in  harvest. — Come,  you  deceive  yourself; 
'Tis  he  that  sends  us  to  destroy  you  here. 

A  like  passage  is  found  in  Proverbs  XXV.,  13: 

As  the  cold  of  snow  in  the  time  of  harvest,  so  is 
a  faithful  messenger  to  them  that  send  him. 

^  Injury. 

[121] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

A  short  distance  further  in  the  same  scene  the 
2nd  Murderer  exclaims: 

A  bloody  deed  and  desperately  despatch'd! 
How,  fain,  like  Pilate,  would  I  wash  my  hands 
Of  this  most  grievous  guilty  murder  done! 

In  Matthew  XXVII.,  24,  Pilate  thus  absolves  himself : 

When  Pilate  saw  that  he  could  prevail  nothing, 
but  that  rather  a  tumult  was  made,  he  took  water, 
and  washed  his  hands  before  the  multitude,  saying, 
I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  just  person: 
see  ye  to  it. 

Act  II.  Scene  III.  contains  this  reference,  spoken 
by  one  of  the  citizens  when  discussing  his  country's 
prospects  under  the  young  king : 

Woe  to  that  land  that's  govem'd  by  a  child! 

This  is  clearly  traced  to  Ecclesiastes  X.,  16 : 

Woe  to  thee,  0  land,  when  thy  king  is  a  child ! 

The  final  Biblical  reference  in  Richard  III.  is  in 
Act  IV.  Scene  III. : 

The  sons  of  Edward  sleep  in  Abraham's  Bosom, 
And  Anne  my  wife  hath  bid  the  world  good  night. 

The  reference  to  sleeping  in   Abraham's   bosom  is 
from  Luke  XVI.,  22 : 

And  it  came  to  pass,  that  the  begger  died,  and 
was  carried  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom. 

King  John  possesses  but  two  expressions  that  are 
traceable  to  the  Bible.  In  Act  II.  Scene  I.  Constance, 
upbraiding  Eleanor  for  her  treatment  of  Arthur, 
thus  addresses  her: 

[122] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

This  is  thy  eldest  son's  son, 
Infortunate  in  nothing  but  in  thee: 
Thy  sins  are  visited  in  this  poor  child; 
The  canon  of  the  law  is  laid  on  him, 
Being  but  the  second  generation 
Removed  from  thy  sin-conceiving  womb. 

The  particular  portion  of  the  Law  of  God  referred  to 
by  Constance  is  that  part  of  the  second  command- 
ment contained  in  Exodus  XX.,  5 : 

I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting 
the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  unto 
the  third  and  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate 
me. 

The  second  reference  is  in  Act  III.  Scene  IV.  and 

is  nothing  more  than  the  mention  of  Cain  as  being 

the  first  male  child  : 

For  since  the  birth  of  Cain,  the  first  male  child, 
To  him  that  did  but  yesterday  suspire,* 
There  was  not  such  a  gracious  creature  bom. 

In  Genesis  IV.,  I.  it  is  stated: 

And  Adam  knew  Eve  his  wife;  and  she  con- 
ceived, and  bare  Cain,  and  said,  I  have  gotten  a 
man  from  the  Lord. 

Henry  VIII.  adds  three  Biblical  references  to 
the  list.  In  Act  I.  Scene  II.  Queen  Katherine,  speak- 
ing in  behalf  of  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  requests 
that  his  words  and  actions  be  not  misinterpreted, 
and  thus  chides  Cardinal  "Wolsey  for  his  apparent 
enmity : 

My  learn'd  lord  cardinal. 
Deliver  all  with  charity. 


That  is, 


«  Breathe. 


Speaking  the  truth  in  love. 

— Ephesians  IV.,  15. 

[123] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Act  V.  Scene  I.  has  this  matter  which  points  clearly 
to  the  Bible  as  its  source : 

Ween'  you  of  better  luck, 
I  mean  in  perjur'd  witness,  than  your  Master, 
Whose  minister  you  are,  whiles  here  He  liv'tl 
Upon  this  naughty  earth? 

The  story  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  before  Caiaphas,  the 
high  priest,  is  told  in  Matthew  XXVI.,  57-68.  The 
passage  bearing  on  the  false  witnesses  is  in  verses 
59-61 : 

Now  the  chief  priests,  and  elders,  and  all  the 
council  sought  false  witness  against  Jesus,  to  put 
him  to  death; 

But  found  none:  yea,  though  many  false  wit- 
nesses came,  yet  found  they  none.  At  the  last  came 
two  false  witnesses. 

And  said.  This  fellow  said,  I  am  able  to  destroy 
the  temple  of  God,  and  to  build  it  in  three  days, 

Cranmer,    Act    V.    Scene    IV.,    prophesies    great 

things  for  the    infant    Princess    Elizabeth,    among 

them  being  a  desire  for  wisdom    and    a    love    for 

virtue : 

Saba  was  never 
More  covetous  of  wisdom  and  fair  virtue, 
Than  this  pure  soul  shall  be. 

The  Queen  of  Sheba  is  supposed  to  have  been  the 
Saba  of  Strabo,  situated  toward  the  southern  part 
of  Arabia,  close  to  the  coast  of  the  Red  Sea,  Her 
visit  to  King  Solomon  is  narrated  in  I.  Kings  X., 
1-13 ;  her  desire  for  wisdom  causing  her  to  take  the 
expensive  trip  to  the  laud  of  the  Israelites  in  order 

'  Imagine. 

[124] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

to  commune  with  Solomon  at  Jerusalem.     In  Mat- 
thew XII.,  42,  it  is  stated : 

The  queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  up  in  the 
judgment  with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn 
it:  for  she  came  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon;  and,  behold, 
a  greater  than  Solomon  is  here. 

The  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona  contains  but  one 
mention  of  a  Biblical  character,  that  of  Eve,  which 
is  in  Act  III.  Scene  I : 

Out  with  that  too:  it  was  Eve's  legacy,  and 
cannot  be  ta'en  from  her. 

All's  "Well  That  Ends  Well  contains  a  speech  in 
Act  II.  Scene  I.  that  breathes  the  very  air  of  the 
Bible,  and  could  only  have  been  penned  by  one 
thoroughly  familiar  with  its  wondrous  pages.  The 
speech  is  that  of  Helena's  addressed  to  the  king,  a 
portion  of  which  is  as  follows : 

He  that  of  greatest  works  is  finisher, 

Oft  does  them  by  the  weakest  minister: 

So  holy  writ  in  babes  hath  judgment  shown, 

When  judges  have  been  babes.    Great  floods  have  flown 

From  simple  sources;  and  great  seas  have  dried, 

When  miracles  have  by  the  greatest  been  denied. 

The  passage, 

So  holy  writ  in  babes  hath  judgment  shown, 
When  judges  have  been  babes, 

refers  to  Matthew  XI.,  25: 

At  that  time  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I  thank 
thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because 
thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  pru- 
dent, and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes. 

[125] 


SIDELIGHTS  ON  SHAKESPEARE 

The  thought  contained  in  the  words, 

Great  floods  have  flown 
From  simple  sources, 

appears  to  refer  to  Moses  smiting  the  rock  in  Horeb 
and  causing  the  water  to  flow.  This  miraculous 
supplying  of  water  is  told  in  Exodus  XVII.,  1-7; 
verse  6  reading: 

Behold,  I  will  stand  before  thee  there  upon  the 
rock  in  Horeb;  and  thou  shalt  smite  the  rock,  and 
there  shall  come  water  out  of  it,  that  the  people 
may  drink.  And  Moses  did  so  in  the  sight  of  the 
elders  of  Israel. 

The  words, 

and  great  seas  have  dried, 
When  miracles  have  by  the  greatest  been  denied, 

no  doubt  alludes  to  the  Israelites  passing  through 
the  Red  Sea,  which  divided  at  the  word  of  God  to 
permit  of  their  passage  and  then  came  together  and 
destroyed  the  hosts  of  Pharaoh.  The  miracle  is 
recorded  in  Exodus  XIV.;  verse  22  reads: 

And  the  children  of  Israel  went  into  the  midst  of 
the  sea  upon  the  dry  ground :  and  the  waters  were 
a  wall  unto  them  on  their  right  hand  and  on  their 
left. 

In  Act  IV.  Scene  V.  the  Clown  makes  this  remark : 
I  am  no  great  Nebuchadnezzar,  sir;  I  have  not 
much  skill  in  grass. 

The  story  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream,  and  Daniel's 
interpretation  of  it,  is  told  in  Daniel  IV.;  verse  33 
states : 

The  same  hour   was   the   thing   fulfilled   upon 
[  126  ] 


THE    BIBLE    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

I         Nebuchadnezzar:    and  he  was  driven  from  men, 
and  did  eat  grass  as  oxen.     .     .     . 

The  Biblical  references  in  All's  Well  That  Ends 
Well  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  show  that  the  user 
of  them  was  familiar  with  their  spirit  and  was  not 
merely  employing  the  form  as  would  a  quoter.  They 
appear  to  spring  spontaneously  from  the  writer's 
brain,  as  though  the  thoughts  were  first  engendered 
there,  showing  that  they  had  passed  into  him  by 
being  thoroughly  learned  and  not  merely  skimmed 
over.  Some  of  the  Biblical  references  in  the  plays 
are  superficial,  but  there  are  a  vast  number  that 
show  clearly  that  the  Bible  was  an  open  book  to 
Shakespeare.  This  phase  of  the  subject  will  be 
dwelt  upon  at  the  close  of  this  chapter. 

The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  contains  five  refer- 
ences traceable  to  the  Bible,  but  all  of  them  appear 
in  other  plays  and  have  been  commented  upon  be- 
fore. In  Act  rV.  Scene  II.  there  is  mention  of  Eve ; 
in  Scene  V.  of  the  same  act  a  painting  of  the  story 
of  the  Prodigal  Son  is  mentioned ;  in  Act  V.  Scene  I. 
Goliah  [Goliath]  is  spoken  of;  and  in  Scene  V.  of 
this  act  Job  is  referred  to.  In  Act  V.  Scene  I.  is  the 
only  significant  Biblical  reference  that  this  play  con- 
tains : 

.     .     .    because  I  know  also,  life  is  a  shuttle. 

In  the  Book  of  Job  VII.,  6,  is  to  be  found : 

My  days  are  swifter  than  a  weaver's  shuttle,  and 
are  spent  without  hope. 

Twelfth  Night  is  poor  in  Biblical  topics,  contain- 
ing but  four  scanty  references :  Eve,  Act  I.  Scene  V. ; 
[127] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Jezebel,  Act  II.  Scene  V.;  Noah,  Act  III.  Scene  II., 
and  "possessed  of  Devils,"  Act  III.  Scene  IV. 

Here  is  offered  the  sum  and  substance  of  Shake- 
speare's indebtedness  to  the  Bible  for  many  of  his 
references  and  some  of  his  noblest  thoughts.  Take 
the  Bible  out  of  Shakespeare  and  a  great  gap  will 
appear.  Not  considering  the  mere  references  in  the 
plays  to  persons  and  events  that  are  recorded  in  the 
Great  Book,  the  sentiments  expressed  therein  in  a 
vast  number  of  instances  show  that  the  author's 
mind  was  influenced  and  his  thoughts  directed  by 
knowledge  that  was  gained  from  its  pages.  Note, 
for  instance,  the  use  of  the  idea  contained  in  the 
words, 

.     .     .     would  almost  damn  those  ears 
Which,  hearing  them,  would  call  their  brothers  fools. 
— The  Merchant  of  Venice,  Act  I.  Scene  I. 

Herein  is  clearly  shown  the  subconscious  use  of  a 
statetment  that  had  been  thoroughly  digested  until 
it  entered  into  the  very  being  of  the  user  and  be- 
came his  own.  Had  Shakespeare  been  asked  where 
he  found  the  expression,  the  chances  are  that  he 
could  not  have  answered  that  it  was  to  be  found  in 
Matthew  V.,  22,  because  he  had  not  memorized  it  as 
a  verse  in  the  Gospel,  but  he  had  grasped  it  as  a  liv- 
ing truth  and  transplanted  it  into  the  garden  of  his 
own  mind.  So  with  the  lines  in  Act  I.  Scene  III. 
of  this  comedy, 

Yes,  to  smell  pork ;  to  eat  of  the  habitation  which 
your  prophet,  the  Nazarite,  conjured  the  devil  into. 

He  had  no  doubt  often  read  the  story  of  the  miracu- 
lous driving  forth  of  the  devils  from  the  man  into 
[128] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

the  swine;  so  when  he  had  occasion  to  draw  the 
character  of  the  Jew,  what  more  natural  than  that 
the  story  of  the  act  of  the  Nazarite  should  come 
to  his  mind  and  he  should  make  use  of  it?  It  is  em- 
ployed not  as  one  paraphrasing  with  the  narrative 
before  him,  but  as  one  making  use  of  an  incident 
that  had  been  experienced.  In  like  manner,  though 
to  a  greater  extent,  this  point  is  demonstrated  in  the 
passage  where  it  is  stated  that  Jacob  was  the  third 
possessor — the  passage  which  reads: 

When  Jacob  grazed  his  uncle  Laban's  sheep, — 
This  Jacob  from  our  holy  Abram  was, 
As  his  wise  mother  wrought  in  his  behalf. 
The  third  possessor;  ay,  he  was  the  third  — 

What  a  world  of  thought  is  contained  in  the  paren- 
thetical phrase  "as  his  wise  mother  wrought  in  his 
behalf."  In  order  to  have  uttered  it,  it  was  neces- 
sary for  the  Dramatist  to  have  known  the  whole 
story  of  the  covenant  into  which  God  entered  with 
Abraham,  and  all  the  circumstances  that  followed 
it.  He  must  have  known  that  Abraham  was  the  first 
possessor,  Isaac  the  second,  and  Esau,  by  right  of 
inheritance,  the  third;  but  by  the  wisdom  (or  schem- 
ing) of  Rebekah,  the  mother  both  of  Esau  and  Jacob, 
the  inheritance  was  diverted  from  Esau,  the  first 
born,  and  bestowed  upon  Jacob,  his  younger  brother. 
It  is  by  such  passages  as  these  three  from  The  Mer- 
chant of  Venice  that  Shakespeare's  deep  knowledge 
of  the  Bible  is  shown,  and  his  great  indebtedness  to 
it  demonstrated. 

The  single  instance  of  the  use  of  a  Biblical  narra- 

[129] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

tive  contained  in  The  Tempest  goes  far  to  still  fur- 
ther show  this  knowledge  and  indebtedness.  How 
many  readers  of  the  Bible  can  recall  the  story  of  the 
death  of  Sisera?  The  question  was  put  to  several 
of  the  author's  acquaintances  and  few  remembered 
the  details,  and  yet  a  remembrance  of  the  details  was 
absolutely  essential  to  the  making  of  the  lines. 

Yea,  yea,  my  lord:  I'll  yield  him  thee  asleep, 
Where  thou  mayst  knock  a  nail  into  his  head. 

It  was  necessary  for  the  Dramatist  to  know  that 
Sisera  died  from  having  a  nail  driven  into  his  head, 
and  that  execution  was  done  unto  him  while  he  was 
asleep.  This  is  one  of  the  passages  in  the  plays  that 
best  displays  Shakespeare's  Biblical  knowledge. 

The  ten  references  to  subjects  that  are  Biblical  in 
their  nature  contained  in  Richard  II.  are  all  signi- 
ficant, the  play  being  particularly  rich  in  Biblical 
references,  but  the  speech  of  Richard  at  the  open- 
ing of  Act  V.  contains  a  passage  that  shows  inti- 
mate acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures.     It  is  this: 

My  brain  I'll  prove  the  female  to  my  soul, 
My  soul,  the  father;  and  these  two  beget 
A  generation  of  still-breeding  thoughts, 
And  these  same  thoughts  people  this  little  world 
In  humours  like  the  people  of  this  world, 
For  no  thought  is  contented.     The  better  sort, 
As  thoughts  of  things  divine,  are  intermix'd 
With  scruples,  and  do  set  the  word  itself 
Against  the  word: 

As  thus, — "Come,  little  on&s;"  and  then  again, — 
"It  is  as  hard  to  come,  as  for  a  camel 
To  thread  the  postern  of  a  needle's  eye." 

The  "Word,"  of  course,  means  the  Bible;  and  the 

setting  of  the  word  against  the  word  is  illustrated 

[130] 


THE    BIBLE    IN   SHAKESPEARE 

by  the  two  quotations — the  invitation  to  come,  and 
the  impossibility  of  coming — which  are  used  to  show 
the  conflict  that  is  taking  place  in  Richard's  mind. 
And  though  the  reasoning  is  erroneous — there  being, 
in  reality,  no  setting  of  the  word  against  the  word — 
the  error  is  Richard's  and  not  Shakespeare's.  The 
idea  of  the  Dramatist  being  to  show  the  troubled 
nature  of  the  King's  thoughts  and  not  to  correctly 
interpret  the  Scriptures. 

The  use  Shakespeare  made  of  the  Bible,  culling 
from  it  thoughts  that  he  might  use  in  working  out 
his  characters,  but  illustrates  one  of  the  greatest 
traits  of  his  genius — the  capacity  of  using  material 
produced  by  others  in  such  a  way  as  to  give  it 
added  beauty  and  strength  in  its  new  setting.  This 
is  not  saying  that  Shakespeare  improved  on  the 
Bible,  but  merely  that  the  incidents  he  used  lost 
nothing  by  being  transplanted  into  other  soil.  The 
subject  might  be  followed  to  far  greater  length  than 
has  been  here  attempted,  but  the  author  trusts  that 
enough  has  been  accomplished  to  enable  the  earnest 
student  in  search  of  further  enlightenment  to  un- 
cover it  for  himself. 


[131] 


CHAPTER  VI 

Oratory  in  Shakespeare 

WHILE  there  is  no  direct  reference  to  oratory, 
and  only  three  references  to  orator,*  in  the 
plays  of  Shakespeare,  yet  they  abound  with  speci- 
mens of  the  many  classes  into  which  oratory  may 
be  divided.  The  passages  in  the  plays  where  the 
characters  soliloquize,  or  where  the  speech  is  merely 
a  part  of  the  dialogue,  will  not  be  discussed  in  this 
chapter,  only  such  being  considered  as  answer  the 
requirements  of  a  speech  by  possessing  the  necessary 
form  of  construction  and  are  addressed  to  collective 
audiences.  For  the  purpose  of  convenience  the 
speeches  will  be  placed  in  their  appropriate  classes, 
and  one  specimen  of  each  class  considered.  The  five 
classes  of  oratory  are :  Philosophic,  Demonstrative, 
Argumentative,  Deliberative,  and  Social. 

Space  is  not  given  in  this  chapter  to  the  different 
examples  cited.  The  reader  who  wishes  to  study 
them  further  can  turn  to  his  copy  of  Shakespeare. 

Let  us  first  consider  what  oratory  is.  In  its 
proper  sense  it  is  the  art  of  public  speaking;  the 
ability  to  instruct,  arouse,  move,  please,  convince 
and  persuade  by  means  of  the  spoken  word.  By 
extension  the  word  oratory  is  used  to  describe  a  com- 

^  I  am  no  orator.      "Julius  Caesar,"   Act  III.  Scene  II. 
I  can  better  play  the  orator.      "III.  Henry  VI.,"   Act  I.   Scene  II. 
I'll  play  tlie  orator.      "Richard  III.,"    Act  III.   Scene   V. 

[132] 


ORATORY   IN    SHAKESPEARE 

position  which  is  read,  or  one  that  is  printed  in 
order  to  be  circulated  and  thus  influence  other 
minds.  It  is  in  its  proper,  or  restricted,  sense  that 
it  is  discussed  here. 

In  the  second  place  let  us  consider  what  an  ora- 
tion is.  Strictly  speaking  it  is  an  elaborate  utter- 
ance, delivered  by  word  of  mouth,  in  a  public  place, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  oratory.  In  its 
strict  sense  it  is  here  considered. 

In  the  third  place  let  us  settle  in  our  minds  what 
an  orator  is.  He  is  one  who  speaks  effectively  in 
public ;  one  who  has  the  power  of  conveying  thought 
by  means  of  word  of  mouth;  one  who  is  able  to 
entertain,  move,  convince,  and  persuade.  Only 
those  who  successfully  stand  this  test  will  be  in- 
cluded among  the  characters  selected  to  illustrate 
the  work  of  this  chapter. 

Philosophic  Oratory 

The  first  class  of  oratory  is  known  as  philosophic. 
Its  province  is  to  teach,  and  it  must  therefore  be, 
above  all  other  things,  instructive.  Its  effort  should 
be  directed  to  the  intellect,  its  sole  aim  being  to 
influence  the  mind,  and  while  it  need  not  be  devoid 
of  feeling  it  must  not  be  vehement  in  character,  nor 
must  its  aim  be  to  move  through  the  feelings. 

One  of  the  best  specimens  of  philosophic  oratory 
to  be  found  in  the  English  language  is  the  address 
of  Hamlet  to  the  Players."*  The  construction,  the 
delivery,  the  address,  and  the  speaker  all  conform 

""Hamlet,"    Act   III.    Scene   II. 

[133] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

to  the  requirements  before  set  forth.  Its  aim  is  to 
instruct  the  plaj^ers  in  the  delivery  of  the  lines  set 
down  for  them;  the  instructions  are  delivered  to  a 
grpup  of  persons;  and  the  delivery  is  that  of  the 
instructor. 

Demonstrative  Oratory 

The  second  class  of  oratory  is  known  as  demon- 
strative. It  is  passionate  in  nature,  and  its  province 
is  to  move  the  listener  through  the  emotions  without 
consideration  as  to  whether  the  motive  that  inspires 
the  speech  or  controls  the  speaker  is  right  or  wrong, 
true  or  false. 

An  excellent  example  of  this  form  of  oratory  is 
the  speech  of  Henry  V.'  to  his  soldiers  before  the 
town  of  Harfleur.  Its  sole  purpose  was  to  cause  the 
English  army  once  more  to  attempt  to  carry  the 
walled  town,  so  King  Henry  appealed  to  the  valor, 
pride,  and  passions  of  his  soldiers,  but  said  nothing 
as  to  the  justice  of  their  king's  cause  in  behalf  of 
which  they  were  called  upon  to  fight. 

Argumentative  Oratory 

The  third  class  of  oratory  is  known  as  argumenta- 
tive. It  is  presumed  to  found  its  cause  on  right  and 
justice,  it  appeals  only  to  the  reason,  and  its  prov- 
ince is  to  convince  and  persuade. 

Of  this  class  of  oratory  the  speech  of  Othello,* 
made  in  his  own  defense  before  the  Duke  and  Sena- 
tors of  Venice,  furnishes  an  excellent  example.    It 

3  "King  Henry  V.."   Act  III.   Scene  I. 
*  ••Othello,"    Act   I.    Scene   III. 

[134] 


ORATORY    IN    SHAKESPEARE 

is  clearly  argumentative  in  nature,  its  object  being 
to  free  Othello  from  the  charge  of  having  used  un- 
lawful means  in  winning  Desdemona  for  his  wife. 
The  facts  are  clearly  stated,  the  argument  is  logical, 
and  the  conclusion  reasonable.  The  speech  thus 
complies  with  the  rules  of  argumentation,  and  de- 
notes clearly  the  class  of  oratory  to  which  it  belongs. 

Deliberative  Oratory 

The  fourth  class  of  oratory  is  known  as  delibera- 
tive. It  pertains  principally  to  legislative  assemblies, 
and  embraces  the  principles  of  both  argumentative 
and  demonstrative  oratory.  Its  governing  ideas  are 
expediency  and  usefulness. 

Marc  Antony's  Oration**  over  the  body  of  Caesar 
is  selected  to  illustrate  this  class.  In  making  this 
selection  the  author  is  departing  from  the  opinion 
of  many  writers  who  present  it  as  a  piece  of  argu- 
mentation. On  close  examination  he  believes  that 
his  judgment  will  be  sustained,  because  the  address 
is  as  much  demonstrative  as  it  is  argumentative,  the 
speaker  is  interrupted  by  members  of  the  assembly 
who  express  their  views  and  ask  questions  of  the 
speaker,  and  the  speech,  in  many  ways,  partakes  of 
the  nature  of  a  debate.  For  these  reasons  it  is 
placed  in  the  deliberative  class. 

Social  Oratory 
The  fifth  class  of  oratory  is  known  as  social.     Its 
one  aim  is  to  entertain,  its  functions  being  wholly 
of  a  social  nature. 

■^  "Julius  Caesar,"   Act  III.  Scene  II. 

[135] 


SIDELIGHTS  ON  SHAKESPEARE 

This  form  of  oratory  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
speech  of  the  Banished  Duke'  to  his  companions  in 
the  Forest  of  Arden.  All  that  pertains  to  social 
oratory  is  apparent  in  this  speech:  the  Duke's 
friends  forming  the  assembly,  the  subject  is  pleasing 
and  of  a  social  nature,  and  the  speaker's  bearing 
toward  his  audience  is  that  of  a  comrade. 

Here  is  a  goodly  array  of  orations,  the  authorship 
of  which  would  be  enough  to  make  a  man  famous 
even  though  he  produced  no  other  work  of  a  like 
nature,  but  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  abound  with 
other  specimens.  What  are  here  given  are  deemed 
sufficient  to  demonstrate  Shakespeare's  knowledge 
of  the  essentials  of  oratory  and  the  requirements  of 
orators,  and  as  these  two  objects  are  what  the  author 
set  out  to  show,  further  testimony  would  be  super- 
fluous. 

«  "As  You  Like  It,"  Act  II.  Scene  I. 


[136] 


CHAPTER  VII 

How  to  Study  Shakespeare 

THE  way  to  study  Shakespeare  is  to  examine  the 
means  whereby  he  produces  his  effects.  While 
many  of  the  beauties  are  apparent  at  first  glance, 
many  more  must' be  dug  for  and  brought  to  the 
light  before  they  are  comprehended.  The  injunc- 
tion "seek,  and  ye  shall  find"  is  true  as  regards  the 
finding  of  the  store  of  wealth  contained  in  Shake- 
speare, just  as  it  is  true  concerning  the  gaining  of 
spiritual  knowledge. 

Let  us  examine  the  following  extract  from  Ham- 
let's soliloquy: 

To  be,  or  not  to  be,  that  is  the  question: 

Whether  'tis  nobler  in  the  mind  to  suffer 

The  slings  and  arrows  of  outrageous  fortune; 

Or  to  take  arms  against  a  sea  of  troubles, 

And,  by  opposing,  end  them? — To  die, — to  sleep, — 

No  more; — and,  by  a  sleep,  to  say  we  end 

The  heart-ache,  and  the  thousand  natural  shocks 

That  flesh  is  heir  to, — 'tis  a  consummation 

Devoutly  to  be  wish'd.       To  die, — to  sleep; — 

To  sleep !  perchance,  to  dream ; — ay,  there's  the  rub ; 

For  in  that  sleep  of  death  what  dreams  may  come. 

When  we  have  shuffled  off  this  mortal  coil, 

Must  give  us  pause.' 

Read  the  above  passage  again  carefully,  aiming  to 
find  out  all  that  it  contains. 

1  "Hamlet,"  Act  III.  Scene  I. 

[137] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Now  read  it  when  so  marked  as  to  show  some  of 
the  means  Shakespeare  employed  in  producing  his 
effects : 

To  be,  or  not  to  be,  that  is  the  question : 

Whether  'tis  nobler  in  the  mind,  to  suffer 

The  slings  and  arrows  of  outrageous  fortune; 

Or  to  take  arms  against  a  sea  of  troubles, 

And,  by  opposing,  end  them? — To  die, — to  sleep, — 

No  more; — and,  by  a  sleep,  to  say  we  end 

The  heart-ache,  and  the  thousand  natural  shocks 

That  flesh  is  heir  to, — 'tis  a  consummation 

Devoutly  to  be  wish'd.     To  die, — to  sleep; — 

To  sleep !  perchance,  to  dream ; — ay,  there's  the  rub ; 

For  in  that  sleep  of  death  what  dreams  may  come, 

When  we  have  shuffled  off  this  mortal  coil. 

Must  give  us  pause. 

When  reading  this  passage  the  first  time  did  you 
see  all  the  points  that  you  do  after  reading  the 
second  copy? 

Let  us  examine  more  closely  the  peculiar  arrange- 
ment of  the  words  employed  by  the  Dramatist,  the 
arrangement  that  adds  so  much  in  stamping  his 
meaning  upon  the  passage,  and  we  will  then  see 
how  necessary  it  is  to  understand  his  mode  of  con- 
struction before  we  can  comprehend  fully  all  that 
the  language  contains. 

There  is  a  contrast  between  "to  be"  and  "not  to 
be,"  the  question  in  Hamlet's  mind  being  whether 
he  should  continue  to  live,  or  end  his  life  with  his 
own  hand.  He  then  reasons  as  to  the  nobler  course 
for  him  to  pursue,  setting  one  plan  against  another : 
basely  submitting  to  the  injustice  of  fortune  or  end- 
ing the  submission  by  committing  suicide.  The  thought 

[138] 


HOW    TO    STUDY    SHAKESPEARE 

then  enters  his  mind  that  to  die  is  only  to  sleep — 
nothing  more  than  to  fall  into  slumber.  But  wait, 
did  he  say  to  sleep?  Why,  then,  one  may  dream, 
and  dreams  may  be  both  good  and  bad,  and  because 
of  this  uncertainty  as  to  the  kind  of  dreams  (the 
thought  being  brought  out  by  placing  emphasis  on 
the  qualifying  word  "what")  he  hesitates  to  pass 
into  the  slumber  of  death.  Many  of  these  points  will 
not  be  seen  by  the  casual  reader,  but  none  of  them 
can  be  missed  by  the  reader  who  understands  the 
means  employed  by  writers  and  speakers  in  producing 
their  effects  and  who  reads  with  an  enquiring  mind. 

Look    for    contrasts — one   thought    placed    against 
another — examine  the  thought  to  find  out  whether 
it  is  negative  or  positive,  note  the  qualifying  word, 
and,  above  all,  lay  hold  of  the  thought  word;  as, 
To  sleep!  perchance,  to  dream;  ay,  there's  the  rub. 

Examine  the  following  extract  from  Hamlet's 
advice  to  the  players: 

0 !  there  be  players,  that  I  have  seen  play, — and 
heard  others  praise,  and  that  highly, — not  to  speak 
it  profanely,  that,  neither  having  the  accent  of 
Christians,  nor  the  gait  of  Christian,  pagan,  nor 
man,  have  so  strutted  and  bellowed,  that  I  have 
thought  some  of  nature's  journeymen  had  made 
men,  and  not  made  them  well,  they  imitated  human- 
ity so  abominably.'' 

Much  discussion  has  occurred  regarding  the  mean- 
ing of  the  latter  part  of  this  passage.  One  critic 
suggested  that  "men"  should  have  "the"  before  it. 
The  Shakespearean  scholar  Malone  changes  "men" 

'  "Hamlet."   Act  III.  Scene  II. 

[139] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

into  ''them."  H.  N.  Hudson,  one  of  the  best  of  the 
many  editors  of  Shakespeare 's  works,  inclines  to  the 
belief  that  the  Dramatist  intended  his  meaning  to  be 
that  men  in  general  were  so  unnatural  as  to  appear 
to  have  been  made  by  nature's  journeymen.  None  of 
these  explanations  seems  necessary  or  correct.  The 
reference  appears  to  refer  clearly  to  the  players  of 
the  period,  whose  mode  of  acting  brought  down  the 
censure  of  the  prince.  "I  have  thought  some  of 
Dature's  journeymen  had  made  men,  and  not  made 
them  well,  they  imitated  humanity  so  abominably" 
must  be  taken  in  conjunction  with  what  precedes 
it.  ".  .  .  there  be  players,  that  I  have  seen  play." 
Hamlet's  meaning  apparently  is  that  the  actors 
whom  he  had  seen  play  did  their  work  so  poorly  as 
to  make  one  think  that  the  actors  had  been  made  by 
the  hand  of  men,  that  they  were  mannikins,  because 
they  reproduced  nature  so  poorly — enacted  the 
parts  in  such  an  exaggerated  and  unnatural  manner. 
"Players,"  "men,"  "them"  and  "they"  all  refer 
to  the  players  that  Hamlet  had  seen  play.  The 
word  "men"  as  here  used  does  not  mean  men  in 
general  but  men  in  particular — the  players. 

Macbeth,  after  he  has  murdered  Duncan,  is  re- 
quested by  his  wife  to  return  to  the  chamber  where 
lies  the  body  of  the  late  king  and  deposit  there  the 
daggers  of  the  grooms  upon  whom  the  guilty  pair 
aim  to  fasten  the  crime.  He  declines  to  do  so.  She 
then  says  to  him: 

Infirm  of  purpose! 
Give  me  the  daggers.    The  sleeping,  and  the  dead, 

[140] 


HOW    TO    STUDY    SHAKESPEARE 

Are  but  as  pictures :    'tis  the  eye  of  childhood, 
That  fears  a  painted  devil.' 

By  this,  Lady  Macbeth  tells  her  lord  that  his  fears 
are  imaginary,  and  she  chides  him  for  his  weakness. 
She  reminds  him  that  the  dead  are  not  real,  that 
they  are  as  pictures  and  consequently  incapable  of 
injuring  him  in  any  manner,  and  that  his  being 
afraid  of  them  is  like  the  child's  fear  of  a  painted 
(unreal)  devil.  By  placing  emphasis  on  the  word 
"painted"  the  idea  of  this  passage  is  conveyed  by 
the  speaker,  and  the  only  way  that  the  reader  will 
be  able  to  grasp  its  meaning  is  by  noting  the  fact 
that  the  word  "painted"  qualifies  the  word  "devil" 
and  tells  us  what  kind  of  a  devil  it  is  that  frightens 
the  eye  of  childhood. 

From  what  has  been  here  written  it  will  be  ob- 
served that  one  of  the  important  aids  to  grasping 
the  meaning  of  Shakespeare  is  a  study  of  his  ar- 
rangements of  the  words  that  carry  his  thought. 
It  signifies  much  whether  Lady  Macbeth  says  'tis 
the  eye  of  childhood  that  fears  a  devil,  or  whether 
she  qualifies  the  meaning  by  using  the  word 
"painted."  Therefore  when  studying  Shakespeare 
look  for  the  qualifying  words  that  color  so  vividly 
the  words  they  act  upon.    For  instance : 

Yet  do  I  fear  thy  nature : 
It  is  too  full  o'  the  milk  of  human  kindness, 
To  catch  the  nearest  way.* 

Give  me  that  man 
That  is  not  passions  slave,  and  I  will  wear  him 


*  "Macbeth,"   Act  II.    Scene  II. 

*  "Macbeth,"   Act  I.   Scene  V. 


[141] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

In  my  hearts  core,  ay  in  my  heart  of  heart, 
As  I  do  thee.^ 

Note  that  Lady  Macbeth  does  not  say  to  catch  the 
way,  but  ''to  catch  the  nearest  way;"  that  Hamlet 
does  not  say  he  will  wear  Horatio  in  his  heart,  but 
that  he  wUl  wear  him  in  his  ''heart  of  heart" — the 
very  innermost  recesses  of  his  affections. 

Shakespeare  often  employs  the  contrast  for  con- 
veying his  thought,  and  by  this  means  he  instantly 
flashes  his  idea  upon  the  mind  of  the  studious  and 
capable  reader;  as, 

Is  this  a  dagger  that  I  see  before  me, 

The  handle  toward  my  hand  ?    Come  let  me  clutch  thee : — 

I  have  thee  not,  and  yet  I  see  thee  still. 

Art  thou  not,  fatal  vision,  sensible 

To  feeling,  as  to  sight  f^ 

I  cannot  tell  what  you  and  other  men 
Think  of  this  life;  but,  for  my  single  self, 
I  had  as  lief  not  be,  as  live  to  Ue 
In  awe  of  such  a  thing  as  I  myself.'' 

From  the  foregoing  instructions  it  must  not  be 
supposed  that  students  of  Shakespeare  are  advised 
to  look  upon  words  as  words.  Far  from  it.  The 
advice  is  to  heed  the  arrangement  of  the  words  and 
to  look  through  the  words  into  the  thought  they 
are  used  to  express.  But  the  position  of  a  word  has 
its  value,  and  it  is  important  that  the  reader  should 
observe  whether  a  word  is  qualified,  or  contrasted, 
or  in  opposition;  in  short,  what  its  relationship  is 
to  the  other  words  of  the  clause,  phrase,  or  sentence. 

»  "Hamlet,"    Act  III.   Scene  II. 

"  "Macbeth,"   Act  II.  Scene  I. 

'  "Julius   Caesar,"    Act   I.   Scene  II. 

[142] 


HOW    TO    STUDY   SHAKESPEARE 

Look  for  the  thought  word  in  all  groups  of  words 
— the  important  word  that  conveys  the  ideas ;  as, 

Is  this  a  dagger  that  I  see  before  me? 
The  idea  here  is  expressed  by  the  word  dagger. 
The  question  being,  is  it  a  real  dagger,  or  merely 
an  imaginary  one.  The  thought  in  a  phrase  or  sen- 
tence may  be  varied  as  many  times  as  there  are 
words  in  the  group ;  as, 

7s  this  a  dagger  that  I  see  before  me? 

Is  this  a  dagger  that  I  see  before  me? 

Is  this  a  dagger  that  I  see  before  me? 

Is  this  a  dagger  that  I  see  before  me? 

and  etc.,  but  there  is  only  one  way  of  interpreting 

correctly  this  line,  and  that  is  by  laying  hold  of 

the  thought  word  and  thus  presenting  the  idea  to 

the  reader's  own  mind,  or  conveying  it  to  the  mind 

of  the  listener  by  means  of  the  voice — stress  being 

placed  upon  the  emphatic  word. 

Note  how  the  important  words  in  the  following 

extracts  are  responsible  for  the  thought: 

'Tis  not  my  profit  that  does  lead  mine  honor; 
Mine  honor,  it.^ 

Who  seeks,  and  will  not  take  when  once  'tis  offered 
Shall  never  find  it  more.^ 

Go  to,  then ;  you  come  to  me,  and  you  say, 
"Shylock,  we   would  have   monies :"     You   say   so ! 
You,  that  did  void  your  rheum  upon  my  beard, 
And  foot  me  as  you  spurn  a  stranger  cur 
Over  your  threshold :    monies  is  your  suit. 
What  should  /  say  to  youf    Should  I  not  say, 
"Hath  a  dog  money?  is  it  possible, 
A  cur  can  lend  three  thousand  ducats?'"" 

8  "Antony   and    Cleopatra,"    Act   II.    Scene   VII. 

»  Ibid. 

i"  "The   Merchant  of  Venice,"   Act  I.   Scene  III. 

[143] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Be  sure  you  understand  the  meaning  of  the  words 
themselves.  In  case  any  are  obscure  or  obsolete,  look 
them  up  in  the  dictionary,  and  have  a  good  glossary 
at  hand  for  reference.  While  studying  Shakespeare, 
and  not  reading  him  for  entertainment  alone,  it 
will  be  found  that  the  notes  of  some  editors  are 
helpful,  but  the  student  should  not  accept  them  as 
authoritative  and  above  appeal  under  any  circum- 
stances. Some  of  the  notes  meant  to  elucidate  the 
works  of  the  Dramatist  are  ridiculous  in  the  ex- 
treme, even  when  used  by  such  editors  as  Johnson, 
Malone,  Theobald,  White,  Rolfe  and  Hudson.  In 
order  that  the  word  ridiculous  may  not  appear  too 
scathing  when  used  in  connection  with  the  able  men 
just  mentioned,  let  us  turn  to  the  play  of  Julius 
Caesar  as  edited  by  H.  N.  Hudson  and  see  what  he 
has  to  say  regarding  the  line,  "His  coward  lips  did 
from  their  color  fly.*^  This  seems  so  simple,  and  the 
meaning  is  so  clear  on  the  face,  that  it  is  strange 
that  any  editor  should  think  a  note  necessary,  and 
yet,  this  is  what  Hudson  has  to  say  regarding  it: 
* '  This  is  oddly  expressed ;  but  a  quibble,  alluding  to 
a  coward  flying  from  his  colors,  was  intended."  Is 
ridiculous  too  strong  a  word  to  apply  to  the  use  of 
such  a  note  as  this?  The  expression  of  the  thought 
has  no  oddity  about  it.  It  is  not  a  quibble.  It  means 
merely  that  because  of  fear  the  color  left  the  lips 
of  Caesar.  Nothing  more  was  meant  by  the  Dram- 
atist. Why,  then,  should  editors  read  into  the  lines 
meanings  that  are  foreign  to  them?     If  editors  per- 

11  Act  I.   Scene  II. 

[144] 


HOW    TO    STUDY    SHAKESPEARE 

sist  in  so  doing,  students  must  learn  to  discard  notes 
—especially,  when  such  notes  are  intended  to  inter- 
pret the  author's  meaning.  The  reader  should 
search  for  the  thought  himself,  should  do  his  own  dig- 
ging, for,  by  so  doing,  he  will  strengthen  his  percep- 
tion and  improve  his  mentality  generally. 

Here  are  some  notes,  lacking  in  wisdom,  to  say 
the  least,  which  are  more  apt  to  confuse  the  reader 
than  to  enlighten  him. 

Thou  didst  smile, 
Infused  with  a  fortitude  from  heaven, 
When  I  have  deck'd  the  sea  with  drops  full  salt/^ 

What  is  wrong  with  the  word  deck'd  as  here  used? 

Some  say  it  is  doubtful  as  to  what  is  meant  by  it; 

one   editor   suggested   that   an   old   English    word, 

degg'd,  meaning  to  sprinkle,  be  substituted  for  it. 

''Deck'd  the   sea  with   drops  full  salt"  needs  no 

editing.    It  means,  I  have  adorned  (or  bedecked)  the 

sea  with  tears  as  salt  as  its  own  water. 

This  precious  book  of  love,  this  unbound  lover, 
To  beautify  him,  only  lacks  a  cover. 
The  fish  Uves  in  the  sea;  and  'tis  much  pride, 
For  fair  without  the  fair  within  to  hide.^^ 

As  regards  this  passage  Hudson  says:  ''It  is  not 
quite  clear  what  is  meant  by  this.  Dr.  Farmer  ex- 
plains it.  The  fish  is  not  yet  caught  and  thinks  there 
is  a  reference  to  the  ancient  use  of  the  fish-skins 
for  book-covers.  .  .  .  Malone  thinks  we  should  read, 
'The  fish  lives  in  the  shell;'  and  he  adds  that  'the 
sea  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  beautiful  cover  to  a  fish, 
though  a  shell  may.'   " 

12  "The  Tempest,"   Act  I.   Scene  II. 

13  "Romeo  and  Juliet,"  Act  I.  Scene  III. 

[145] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

How  unnecessary  are  all  these  surmises,  annota- 
tions and  emendations  of  the  wise  men  who  would 
rewrite  Shakespeare.  It  is  well  for  them  to  define 
obscure  phrases,  translate  idioms,  give  the  meaning 
that  obsolete  words  possessed  in  the  days  of  their 
use,  but  to  thrust  aside  the  clear  meaning  of  Shake- 
speare by  "reading  in"  one  of  their  own  is  abso- 
lutely wrong,  and  it  is  because  of  this  ''reading  in" 
that  so  many  editors  are  worse  than  useless.  The 
note  above  quoted  illustrates  this  point.  Let  us 
examine  Shakespeare's  lines  that  appear  to  have 
mystified  so  many  of  these  gentlemen: 

This  precious  book  of  love,  this  unbound  lover, 
To  beautify  him,  only  lacks  a  cover. 
The  fish  lives  in  the  sea;  and  'tis  much  pride, 
For  fair  without  the  fair  within  to  hide. 

Lady  Capulet  desires  Juliet  to  marry  Paris.  She 
has  been  extolling  his  beauty  of  form  and  charm  of 
character,  and  in  the  lines  quoted  she  states  that  he 
lacks  only  one  thing  to  make  him  a  perfect  man — a 
wife.  She  is  decrying  bachelorhood  and  praising 
the  married  state,  cleverly  coloring  her  narrative  so 
as  to  catch  the  romantic  fancy  of  her  young  daughter. 
Here  is  an  explanation  of  a  passage  that  is  clear 
on  its  face:  "This  precious  book  of  love,  this  un- 
bound lover"  refers  to  Paris,  a  handsome  young 
man  who  is  unmarried  (unbound).  "To  beautify 
him,  only  lacks  a  cover"  means  that  he  needs  a  wife 
to  make  him  a  perfect  man  as  printed  matter  re- 
quires a  cover  to  make  it  a  book.  "The  fish  lives 
in  the  sea"  as  man  and  woman  live  on  the  earth, 

[146] 


HOW    TO    STUDY    SHAKESPEARE 

''and  'tis  much  pride  for  fair  without  the  fair 
within  to  hide,"  simply  means  that  it  is  a  great 
error  for  man  or  woman  to  hide  within  oneself 
and  exist  as  a  single  being.  They  should  live  within 
one  another  as  "the  fish  lives  in  the  sea,"  immersed 
in  love  as  the  fish  is  enveloped  by  the  water. 

In  King  Lear,  Act  I.  Scene  IV.,  when  the  King 
demands  to  know  of  Goneril's  steward  the  where- 
abouts of  his  daughter,  and  is  treated  with  scant 
courtesy,  he  becomes  enraged  and  demands  to  see 
her.  When  she  finally  appears  she  is  much  pro- 
voked, causing  her  father  to  exclaim: 

How  now,  daughter!     What  makes  that  frontlet  on? 
Metbinks,  you  are  too  much  of  late  i'  the  frown. 

This  is  explained  by  Hudson  thus:  ''A  frontlet,  or 
forehead  cloth,  was  worn  by  ladies  of  old  to  prevent 
wrinkles,"  This  may  be  true,  but  it  is  very  ques- 
tionable that  Shakespeare  had  any  such  idea  of 
the  word  frontlet  when  he  used  it.  Goneril  came 
into  the  presence  of  her  father  with  a  frown  on  her 
face,  therefore  he  reproved  her  for  having  such  a 
front  (or  face)  when  in  his  company,  telling  her  that 
too  often  of  late  has  she  had  a  frown  upon  her  brow. 
If  Shakespeare  intended  to  use  the  word  frontlet  in 
the  manner  suggested  by  Hudson,  he  surely  made 
a  pretty  mess  of  it.  If,  indeed,  a  frontlet  is  some- 
thing worn  to  prevent  wrinkles,  and  Lear  is  dis- 
pleased at  the  wrinkles  on  Goneril's  brow  (her 
frown),  why  should  he  censure  her  for  wearing  a 
frontlet?    Better  take  the  words  at  their  face  value 

[147] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

and  not  smother  the  thought  by  burying  it  in  a  far- 
fetched conclusion. 

It  may  appear  that  the  author  has  labored  unnec- 
essarily on  this  point,  using  a  cannon,  as  it  were, 
to  kill  a  fly,  but  his  object  is  to  show  the  senseless- 
ness of  much  of  the  editing  of  Shakespeare,  so  as 
to  warrant  him  in  advising  students  not  to  be  gov- 
erned by  the  opinions  of  editors  but  to  form  them 
for  themselves  by  a  studious  examination  of  the 
text. 

Much  credit  is  due  the  thoughtful  men  who 
labored  so  long  and  so  hard  to  correct  the  errors  that 
had  crept  into  the  printed  works  of  Shakespeare, 
and  the  author  has  no  intention  to  detract  from  the 
meed  of  praise  to  which  they  are  entitled.  But  he 
feels  called  upon  to  register  a  protest  against  critics 
and  editors  injecting  their  own  thoughts  into  the 
Dramatist's  matter.  He  hopes  his  doing  so  cannot 
justly  be  considered  an  impertinence. 

The  advice  so  far  given  deals  only  with  individual 
thoughts,  but  now  we  will  consider  them  collectively 
as  forming  scenes,  acts  and  plays.  Remember,  we 
are  now  dealing  with  the  subject  of  studying  Shake- 
speare as  distinguished  from  reading  him,  therefore 
in  order  that  we  may  know  his  works  we  must 
observe  all  their  characteristics  and  become  familiar 
with  his  workmanship. 

There  are  several  things  for  us  to  learn  before 
we  can  intelligently  know  an  author,  among  these 
being  his  manner  of  construction,  the  source  of  his 
plot  (original  or  borrowed),  and  the  powers  he  wields 

[148] 


HOW   TO    STUDY   SHAKESPEAKE 

for  producing  his  effects.  It  is  these  things  that 
stamp  an  author's  individuality  upo"n  his  work  and 
show  it  to  have  come  from  his  brain. 

In  dealing  with  Shakespeare's  construction  of  his 
plays  we  are  to  consider  how  far  he  is  governed  by 
what  is  known  as  the  law  of  unity.  This  law  of 
dramatic  unity  embraces  the  unity  of  time,  the  unity 
of  place,  and  the  unity  of  action. 

So  far  as  the  plot  is  concerned  it  is  well  to  know 
whether  it  is  original  or  borrowed.  If  the  latter,  we 
should  learn  something  of  its  source.  A  plot  may 
be  either  simple  or  complex.  It  is  simple  when  it 
deals  with  one  story,  and  complex  when  it  weaves 
several  stories  into  a  whole.  The  method  of  devel- 
opment of  the  plot  may  consist  of  a  rise  and  fall 
of  action,  interest,  or  storj^,  the  crisis  appearing  in 
the  middle  of  the  play;  or  it  may  rush  on  to  the 
culmination  in  the   form  of  a  catastrophe. 

The  third  point  to  consider  is  what  peculiar  means 
Shakespeare  employs  for  producing  his  effects. 
Here  we  should  study  his  manner  of  telling  his 
story,  whether  by  the  action  of  the  characters,  or 
by  their  speeches;  the  peculiar  arrangement  of  the 
scenes;  and  his  manipulation  of  the  characters. 

The  law  of  dramatic  unity  means  this:  A  drama 
must  possess  unity  of  action,  unity  of  time,  and 
unity  of  place.  By  unity  of  action  is  meant  that  the 
life  of  a  play,  its  action,  must  proceed  from  one 
controlling  cause  and  be  governed  by  one  purpose. 
By  unity  of  time  is  meant  that  the  development  of 
the  action  must  take  place  within  the  space  of  time 

[  149  ] 


SIDELIGHTS  ON  SHAKESPEARE 

that  the  actual  occurrence  would  occupy.  By  unity 
of  place  is  meant  that  the  scene  must  transpire  in 
one  location. 

Shakespeare  was  not  governed  by  these  laws,  but 
generally  acted  so  free  of  them  that  at  first  thought 
one  is  apt  to  think  he  was  ignorant  of  them,  but  in 
the  The  Tempest  he  keeps  so  close  to  these  unities 
as  to  indicate,  at  least,  a  knowledge  of  them.  The 
fact  that  he  was  aware  of  the  existence  of  the  laws 
of  unity  is  apparent  in  some  of  his  earlier  plays,  but 
by  refusing  to  be  governed  by  them  in  his  later  mas- 
ter-pieces, Hamlet,  Othello,  Macbeth  and  Lear,  it 
looks  as  though  he  did  not  entertain  a  very  high 
opinion  of  them.  It  may  be  that  his  genius  refused 
to  be  bound  by  any  law  and  took  its  flight  whither- 
soever his  fancy  led  him.  True,  in  the  great  majority 
of  his  plays  he  is  controlled  by  some  power  respecting 
the  unity  of  action,  as  they  all  spring  from  some 
particular  motive  and  are  governed  by  it  throughout 
the  whole  play,  but,  as  a  rule,  he  pays  little  atten- 
tion to  the  rules  of  unity  of  time  and  place.  If  we 
are  governed  by  the  Aristotelian  definition  of  the 
law  of  the  unity  of  action,  that  nothing  must  be 
admitted  into  a  play  that  does  not  primarily  per- 
tain to  the  development  of  the  plot,  then  we  must 
acknowledge  that  Shakespeare,  in  many  instances, 
discarded  even  the  law  of  unity  of  action.  But  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  hold  this  law  to  mean  that 
many  stories  or  themes  may  be  developed  in  a  plot 
provided  these  stories  are  so  interwoven  as  to  blend 
into  the  one  main  story  or  theme,  as  in  The  Mer- 

[150] 


HOW   TO    STUDY   SHAKESPEARE 

chant  of  Venice,  then  must  we  confess  that  Shake- 
speare respected  such  a  law.  In  other  words,  he  was 
not  bound  by  inflexible  rules  but  worked  under 
pliable  ones — he  was  governed  by  a  principle. 

Shakespeare's  plots  were,  in  the  main,  borrowed. 
So  far  as  the  stories  go  there  is  little  that  is  original 
in  his  plays.  Many  of  his  characters,  notably  Mer- 
cutio,  are  of  his  creation,  but  the  plots  of  his  plays 
he  gathered  from  many  sources,  taking  the  material 
of  others  he  "touched  it  to  finer  issues." 

Plot,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  when  speak- 
ing of  a  play,  means  the  story  around  which  the 
drama  is  constructed.  The  plot  is  worked  out  by 
incidents  complex  and  confusing,  twisting  in  and 
out,  across  and  around  at  the  choice  of  the  author, 
until  all  is  made  clear  in  the  last  act. 

Shakespeare  uses  principally  the  plot  develop- 
ment that  has  been  likened  to  an  arch,  as  in  most 
of  his  plays  he  has  a  rise  in  the  incidents  forming 
his  plots  up  to  the  middle  of  the  play  and  then  a 
decline.  This  form  of  construction  is  emphasized  in 
Macbeth,  Richard  HI.,  The  Merchant  of  Venice, 
Hamlet,  Lear,  and  Othello,  and  is  used  in  most  of  the 
plays  that  are,  in  the  main,  the  work  of  Shakespeare. 

The  arch-like  structure  of  plot  is  magnificentlj'" 
illustrated  in  the  tragedy  of  Othello.  The  story 
commences  in  the  first  act,  rises  to  its  height  in  the 
third  act,  and  then  passes  down  to  its  close  at  the 
end  of  the  fifth  act.  At  the  moment  in  the  third  act 
that  Othello  says  to  lago,  "Now  art  thou  my  lieu- 
tenant," showing  that  he  is  convinced  of  the  guilt 

[1511 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

of  his  wife,  the  climax,  or  the  center  of  the  arch, 
has  been  reached,  and  from  that  point  the  fateful 
story  passes  along  to  the  catastrophe  of  Desdemona's 
murder,  the  unveiling  of  lago,  and  the  suicide  of  the 
broken-hearted  Othello. 

The  form  of  plot  may  be  either  simple  or  complex. 
The  Merchant  of  Venice  and  Lear  are  examples  of 
the  complex  plot,  as  they  are  made  of  many  stories, 
distinct  combinations  and  separate  actions  that  are 
woven  together  into  a  play,  while  The  Tragedy  of 
Hamlet,  telling  but  one  story  that  has  Hamlet  for 
its  center,  typifies  clearly  the  simple  plot.  Shylock 
and  Lear  are  likewise  the  pivots  of  The  Merchant 
of  Venice  and  of  Lear,  but  in  both  these  plays  sev- 
eral stories  are  introduced  pertaining  to  other  char- 
acters and  interwoven  into  a  whole,  while  in  Hamlet 
and  in  Julius  Caesar  no  story  is  introduced  that  has 
not  the  central  character  for  its  object.  This  it  is 
that  makes  a  plot  either  complex  or  simple. 

The  plays  of  Shakespeare  are  written  in  iambic 
pentameter  and  prose,  with  other  verse  interspersed. 
For  the  information  of  the  young  student  of  these 
pages  it  may  be  well  to  state  that  an  iambus  is  a 
foot  of  two  syllables,  an  unaccented  followed  by  an 
accented  one ;  as  presume,  contain,  etc.  Pentameter 
is  a  line  of  verse  having  five  feet,  each  foot  contain- 
ing two  syllables  or  beats;  as, 

The  qual  |  i    ty  |  of  mer  |  cy  is  |  not  strain'd. 

Iambic  pentameter,  therefore,  is  a  line  of  verse  con- 

[152] 


HOW   TO    STUDY   SHAKESPEARE 

taining  five  feet,  each  foot  having  two  syllables,  the 
first  one  unaccented  and  the  second  accented ;  as, 
0,  par  I  don  me,  |  thou  bleed  ]  ing  piece  |  of  earth, 

Shakespeare  did  not  follow  blindly  this  rule  of 
metrical  construction,  therefore  we  find  in  his 
works  many  double  endings;  such  as, 

This  was  |  your  hus  |  band.  Look  |  you  now  |  what  fol  |  lows. 

Here  there  is  half  a  foot  too  much  in  the  line,  mak- 
ing eleven  beats  instead  of  ten,  one  more  than  is 
called  for  by  the  meter.  This  excess  of  syllables  is 
also  termed  hypermetrical  because  of  the  excess  in 
the  measure,  and  is  to  be  found  most  often  in  those 
plays  that  are  supposed  to  have  been  written  in  the 
later  period  of  Shakespeare's  work.  Hamlet  contains 
many  instances  of  this  excess  of  measure,  the  fam- 
ous soliloquy   opening   with   a  hypermetrical  line : 

To  be  I  or  not  |  to  be  |  that  is  |  the  ques  |  tion. 

The  double  ending  is  also  known  as  the  female  end- 
ing. 

It  has  been  held  by  several  editors  that  the  ap- 
proximate date  of  the  birth  of  each  play  can  be 
determined  by  internal  evidence  disclosing  the  fre- 
quency of  double  endings,  the  occurrence  of  "end- 
stopped"  lines,  the  appearance  of  rhyme,  the  fre- 
quency of  classical  allusions,  and  the  use  of  puns. 
These  unquestionably  are  aids  in  determining  the 
period  when  a  play  was  written,  but  they  are  not 
infallible,  and  should  only  be  accepted  as  conclusive 
when  re-enforced  by  evidence  of  a  different  nature. 

[153] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

The  "end-stopped"  line  or  couplet  is  one  where 
the  thought  finishes  with  the  line  or  the  couplet;  as, 

Can  no  man  tell  me  of  my  unthrifty  son? 
'Tis  full  three  months  since  I  did  see  him  last: 
If  any  plague  hang  over  us,  'tis  he/* 

The    "run-on"    line,    known    technically    as    the 

enjamhed,  carries  the  idea  through  two  or  more  lines ; 

as, 

Here  is  your  husband;  like  a  mildew'd  ear, 
Blasting  his  wholesome  brother.     Have  you  eyes? 
Could  you  on  this  fair  mountain  leave  to  feed. 
And  batten  on  this  moor?  Ha!  have  you  eyes? 
You  cannot  call  it  love;  for,  at  your  age, 
The  hey-day  in  the  blood  is  tame;  it's  humble, 
And  waits  upon  the  judgment;  and  what  judgment 
Would  step  from  this  to  this?'" 

There  are  also  lines  in  Shakespeare  where  the 
number  of  actual  feet  is  insufficient  to  make  a  com- 
plete verse  of  iambic  pentameter,  the  deficiency  being 
made  up  by  a  pause  as. 

Under  my  battlements.     Come,  you  spirits 

In  this  line,  the  pause  after  the  word  "come"  takes 
the  place  of  half  a  foot  in  the  meter,  giving  the  time 
that  belongs  to  a  whole  foot  to  this  monosyllable. 
Some  editors  advise  repeating  the  word  "come" 
in  order  to  make  the  five  feet.  It  is,  however,  unnec- 
essary to  do  so,  as  the  pause  takes  the  place  of  the 
half  foot.  In  some  lines  an  extra  word  will  be 
found;  as, 
And  fill  I  me,  from  |  the  crown  |  to  the  toe,  |  top-full 

1*  "King  Richard   II.,"    Act  V.   Scene   III. 
IS  "Hamlet,"   Act  III.  Scene  IV. 

[154] 


HOW    TO    STUDY    SHAKESPEARE 

but  this  apparent  error  is  remedied  by  blending  the 
two  words  "to  the"  into  one  half  of  a  foot.  It  is 
this  refusal  of  Shakespeare  to  be  bound  by  hard  set 
rules  that  gives  his  poetry  its  wonderful  power, 
flexibility  and  smoothness. 

.     .     .     The  raven  |  himself  I  is  hoarse,  | 
That  croaks  |  the  fa  |  tal  en  \  trance  of  |  Duncan  I 
Under  |  my   laat  |  tlements.  |  Come,  1 1  you    spirits  | 
That  tend  |  on  mor  |  tal  thoughts,  |  unsex  |  me  here  | 
And  fill  I  me,  from  |  the  crown  |  to  the  toe,  |  top-full  | 
Of  dir  I  est  eru  |  elty  Ml'' 

This  pause  is  termed  the  Caesura,  or  sense,  pause. 

It  is  often  used  in  the   manner  indicated   in  this 

example.     It  is  also  employed  by  Shakespeare  in 

the  middle  of  a  foot  and  in  the  center  of  the  verse ; 

as, 

It  is  I  the  bright  |  day  1 1  that  ]  brings  forth  |  the  adder.  ' ' 

What  is  known  as  the  "speech-ending"  test,  the 
ending  of  the  speech  with  the  line,  is  also  of  value  in 
deciding  the  probable  time  of  the  writing  of  a  play. 
Those  of  the  supposed  early  period  possess  many 
speeches  that  end  with  the  line,  whereas  those  of 
the  later  period  possess  few.  Here  is  an  example  of 
a  speech  ending  on  the  line,  taken  from  Love's 
Labor's  Lost: 

A  -wither'd  hermit,  five  score  winters  worn. 
Might  shake  off  fifty,  looking  in  her  eye: 
Beauty  doth  varnish  age,  as  if  new-born. 
And  gives  the  crutch  the  cradle's  infancy. 
0,  'tis  the  sun  that  maketh  all  things  shine!'* 

1*  "Macbeth,"    Act   I.   Scene   V. 

^ ''  "Julius   Caesar,"    Act   II.    Scene   I. 

1*  "Love's   Labor's    Lost,"    Act   IV.    Scene    III. 

[155] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

The  following  extract  from  King  Lear  illustrates 
the  speech  ending  in  the  middle  of  a  line : 

Lear,  Sir,  there  she  stands: 

If  aught  within  that  little  seeming  substance, 
Or  all  of  it,  with  our  displeasure  piee'd. 
And  nothing  more,  may  fitly  like  your  grace. 
She's  there,  and  she  is  yours. 

Burgundy,  I  know  no  answer. 

Lear,     Will  you,  with  those  infirmities  she  owes. 
Unfriended,  new-adopted  to  our  hate, 
Dower'd  with  our  curse,  and  stranger'd  with  our  oath, 
Take  her,  or  leave  her? 

Burgundy,  Pardon  me,  royal  sir; 

Election  makes  not  up  on  such  conditions.^' 

Light  endings  are  words  of  one  syllable  at  the 

close  of  a  line  whereon  the  voice  can  rest  only  in  a 

slight  degree.     Light  endings  are  such  words  as — 

are,  art,  am,  can,  could,  hath,  thou,  he,  she,  they, 

shall,  will,  etc;  as. 

Out,  treacherous  villain ! 
Thou  call'st  on  him  that  hates  thee:   it  was  he 
That  made  the  overture  of  thy  treason  to  us,'" 

Weak  endings  are  words  of  one  syllable  at  the 
close  of  a  line  whereon  the  voice  does  not  rest  but 
passes  on  quickly  to  the  next  line.  Weak  endings 
are  words  such  as — at,  of,  from,  in,  on,  by,  if,  and, 
or,  but,  nor,  etc.  Weak  endings  are  generally  preposi- 
tions or  conjunctions ;  as. 

Let's  see  his  pockets :  these  letters  that  he  speaks  of 
May  be  my  friends.  ^  ^ 


"•'  "King  Lear,"    Act   I.   Scene  I. 

»o  "King   Lear,"    Act   III.    Scene   VII. 

2  1  "King   Lear,"    Act  IV.   Scene  VI. 

[156] 


HOW    TO    STUDY   SHAKESPEARE 

Also, 

He  hath  commission  from  thy  wife  and  me 
To  hang  Cordelia  in  the  prison,  and 
To  lay  the  blame  upon  her  own  despair 
That  she  fordid  herself." 

The  student  of  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  should 
not  fail  to  note  the  plot  development,  grasp  the 
central  theme,  and  study  carefully  the  bearing  the 
characters  have  upon  one  another.  One  of  Shake- 
speare's great  principles  was  to  always  have  a  fixed 
purpose  apparent  in  his  work.  Let  the  student  ex- 
amine each  play  with  the  object  of  finding  this  pur- 
pose. When  found,  it  will  make  clear  the  object 
the  Dramatist  had  for  the  creation  of  the  drama 
along  the  lines  he  adopted. 

As  the  author  hopes  this  work  will  fall  into  the 
hands  of  young  students,  as  well  as  those  of  mature 
years,  he  deems  it  well  to  explain  some  terms  that, 
while  perfectly  plain  to  a  large  majority,  may  be 
obscure  to  a  few.  The  words  folio  and  quarto  are 
used  many  times  in  this  work,  so  in  order  that  their 
meaning  may  be  perfectly  clear  to  all  who  read 
these  pages,  the  following  definitions  are  given: 
The  word  folio  means  having  two  leaves.  When  it 
is  used  in  reference  to  printed  matter,  it  signifies 
that  the  sheet  of  paper  on  which  the  printing  ap- 
pears has  been  folded  once,  thus  making  two  leaves, 
each  being  one  half  of  the  sheet.  Quarto  means  that 
the  sheet  has  been  folded  twice,  each  sheet  making 
four  leaves. 

2  3  "King  Lear,"   Act  V.  Scene  III. 

[157] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

The  author  trusts  that  the  hints  and  suggestions 
contained  in  this  chapter  will  prove  a  source  of 
inspiration  to  all  who  would  know  how  to  study 
Shakespeare.  The  plays  of  the  Bard  of  Avon  are  a 
priceless  gift  to  humanity,  and  will  prove  to  the 
faithful  student,  next  to  the  study  of  Nature  herself, 
the  best  of  all  means  for  gaining  intellectual  devel- 
opment along  broad  and  natural  lines. 


[158] 


CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Disputed  Plays 

IT  IS  evident  to  the  author  that  in  the  collected 
works  of  Shakespeare  there  are  plays  that  he 
merely  ''touched  up"  and  others  with  which  he  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do.  Thirty-seven  plays  are  in- 
cluded in  most  of  the  modem  editions  of  the  Dram- 
atist's works,  but  from  both  internal  and  external 
evidence  it  appears  that  The  First  Part  of  King  Henry 
VI.,  King  Henry  VIII.,  and  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew 
are  the  productions  of  more  than  one  mind,  Shake- 
speare in  these  plays  merely  elaborating  and  embel- 
lishing the  Avorks  of  others. 

There  is  conclusive  external  evidence  to  show 
that  plays  dealing  with  the  subjects  contained  in 
The  First  Part  of  King  Henry  VI.  existed  long  before 
the  commencement  of  Shakespeare's  career  as  a 
dramatist,  and  there  is  unmistakable  internal  evi- 
dence to  show  that  much  of  this  old  matter  is  in  the 
play  that  is  now  ascribed  to  him.  In  all  his  known 
works  Shakespeare  was  fair  in  his  estimation  of 
the  French,  but  in  this  play  they  are  depicted  as 
mean  and  cowardly.  There  are  also  passages  that 
must  have  been  added  at  a  later  day  than  when  the 
play  was  originally  written,  as  the  versification  in 
parts  is  more  smooth,  the  imagery  richer,  and  the 
emotions  more  deftly  depicted.    In  fact,  the  play  is 

[159] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

so  uneven  in  quality  and  style  as  to  stamp  it  as  being 
the  work  of  at  least  two  minds.  This  point  can  be 
demonstrated  by  comparing  the  well-constructed 
scene  showing  the  dramatic  rupture  among  the 
nobles  in  The  Temple  Garden,  Act  II.  Scene  IV., 
with  the  scene  that  precedes,  or  the  one  that  follows 
it. 

Much  the  same  reasons  given  for  declaring  the  major 
portion  of  The  First  Part  of  King  Henry  VI.  to  be 
the  work  of  other  hands  than  Shakespeare's  apply 
to  both  King  Henry  VIII.  and  The  Taming  of  the 
Shrew.  Portions  of  these  three  plays  are  undeniably 
Shakespearean  in  their  character,  some  passages 
clearly  denoting  that  they  emanated  from  the  same 
mind  that  produced  the  master  plays  that  are  known 
to  be  Shakespeare's,  one  character  in  particular, 
Cardinal  Wolsey,  bearing  the  impress  of  his  genius 
and  showing  that  it  came  from  the  same  source  as 
did  Hamlet  and  Macbeth,  but  the  presence  of  these 
genuine  portions  only  emphasizes  the  spuriousness 
of  the  remainder. 

Pericles,  Titus  Andronicus,  and  Timon  of  Athens 
show  little  sign  of  his  handiwork.  In  the  opinion 
of  the  author,  these  three  plays  were  entirely  written 
by  other  men.  It  is  likely  that  they  were  presented 
by  their  authors  to  the  theatre  for  production,  that 
Shakespeare  did  no  more  than  rearrange  them.,  and 
that  they  were  attributed  to  him  because  it  was  to 
the  interest  of  the  management  of  the  theatre  to 
have  them  appear  as  the  works  of  a  known  writer. 
This  opinion  is  founded  on  a  careful  study  of  the 

[  160  ] 


THE    DISPUTED   PLAYS 

plays  and  all  the  known  circumstances  surrounding 
them.  It  is  here  given  for  what  it  is  worth  in  order 
that  the  student  in  studying  Shakespeare  may  ac- 
count in  a  plausible  manner  for  the  inequality  of 
the  work  throughout  certain  of  the  plays  that  are 
ascribed  to  him. 

With  the  stroke  of  a  pen  three  works  should  not 
be  stricken  from  the  list  of  supposed  Shakespearean 
plays,  a  fitting  respect  for  the  opinions  of  others 
demanding  that  reasons  be  assigned  for  their  re- 
moval, so  the  author  will  here  present  what  he  con- 
siders his  warrant  for  not  including  Timon  of 
Athens,  Pericles,  and  Titus  Andronicus  among  the 
accepted  works  of  the  Dramatist. 

Timon  of  Athens  in  no  wise  resembles  the  known 
works  of  Shakespeare.  It  possesses  none  of  the 
characteristics  of  his  style,  his  diction,  his  vocabu- 
lary, or  his  construction.  It  is  almost  devoid  of 
action,  so  much  so  as  to  make  it  unsuited  for  the 
stage.  It  is  a  fact  that  Shakespeare  wrote  his  plays 
for  stage  purposes — to  be  acted,  and  not  read — why, 
then,  should  he  compose  a  piece  utterly  unsuited 
for  stage  uses?  Shakespeare  was  an  actor  and  ap- 
preciated to  the  full  the  necessity  of  action  in  a 
play.  He  never  neglected  its  introduction  even  into 
philosophical  tragedies  such  as  Hamlet  or  fanciful 
comedies  such  as  The  Tempest.  Therefore,  unless 
some  sufficient  reason  is  given  for  his  having  pur- 
posely omitted  action  in  Timon  of  Athens,  its  ab- 
sence, coupled  with  the  failure  to  produce  direct 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  constitutes  good  ground 

[161] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

for  deciding  that  the  play  was  not  of  his  making. 
As  it  appears  in  the  original  edition  it  has  no 
arrangement  into  acts  and  scenes,  nor  are  the  stage 
directions  at  all  explicit.  The  whole  of  some  scenes 
and  portions  of  others  might  he  omitted  without 
loss  to  the  play,  while  many  of  the  characters  are 
weakly  drawn  and  others  are  unnecessary.  All 
these  things  are  so  un-Shakespearean,  not  appearing 
even  in  the  Dramatist's  earliest  works,  as  to  greatly 
strengthen  the  absence  of  action  as  a  reason  for  the 
rejection  of  this  play. 

Titus  Andronicus  is  the  next  play  to  consider.  A 
play  of  this  name  is  known  to  have  been  in  existence 
when  Shakespeare  was  a  very  young  man,  possibly 
not  more  than  twenty  years  of  age.  Ben  Jonson, 
writing  in  1614,  plainly  states  that  Androiiicus  was 
known  to  the  theatre-going  public  twenty-five  or 
thirty  years  previous  to  that  date,  when  Shakespeare 
was  in  his  early  twenties,  or  about  the  time  he  left 
Stratford.  This  early  play  may  reasonably  be  set 
down  as  not  coming  from  Shakespeare  either  in 
whole  or  in  part.  The  first  known  edition  of  this 
play,  a  quarto  published  in  1600,  does  not  credit  the 
play  to  Shakespeare,  but  it  appears  in  The  First 
Folio  among  the  tragedies.  The  hand  of  Shake- 
speare is  nowhere  to  be  seen  from  the  opening  to  the 
close  of  the  play,  the  versification  being  artificial 
and  the  characters  unnatural.  It  seems  to  the 
author  that  there  are  sufficient  inelegancies  of  style 
and  manner  in  the  play  itself,  so  little  evidence  of 

[162] 


THE    DISPUTED   PLAYS 

Shakespeare  in  it,  as  to  not  only  warrant  but  to 
demand  its  exclusion  from  his  works. 

Pericles,  Prince  of  Tyre,  is  more  Shakespearean 
than  either  Timon  or  Andronicus,  but  there  is  no 
more  outward  evidence  to  warrant  its  assignment 
to  the  Dramatist  than  that  which  can  be  furnished 
for  the  other  two  plays  and  very  little  that  is  con- 
tained in  the  play  itself.  It  does  not  appear  in  The 
First  Folio,  but  was  printed  in  quarto  form  in  1609, 
and  reissued  in  1611,  1619,  1630  and  1635.  The  play 
possesses  some  good  passages  but  the  early  acts  are 
weak  and  the  entire  play,  except  for  these  particular 
passages,  bears  no  resemblance  to  the  handiwork  of 
Shakespeare.  It  is  not  in  his  style,  nor  does  it  bear 
the  impress  of  his  genius  at  any  stage  of  his  career. 

Some  editors  claim  that  these  three  plays  were 
written  by  Shakespeare  during  his  early  life  as  a 
dramatist,  others  say  they  are  in  the  main  the  work 
of  other  men  and  that  Shakespeare  rearranged  and 
improved  them,  but  to  the  author's  mind  the  plays 
themselves  cry  out  against  both  decisions.  Let  a 
person  familiar  with  the  known  works  of  Shake- 
speare, divesting  himself  of  prejudice,  read  the  three 
rejected  plays,  and  he  will,  in  all  probability,  reach 
the  conclusion  that  they  are  no  more  the  product  of 
the  Shakespearean  mind  than  are  The  London 
Prodigal,  The  Life  of  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  The  Two 
Noble  Kinsmen,  and  the  other  plays  that  were 
falsely  attributed  to  him.  The  hand  of  Shakespeare 
is  clearly  seen  tracing  the  lineaments  of  Rosalind, 
Juliet,  Portia,  Hamlet,  Othello,  Lear,  Macbeth,  and 

[163] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

his  other  known  productions,  but  nowhere  can  its 
influence  be  perceived  in  Andronicus,  Tamora,  Peri- 
cles, or  Timon. 

The  opening  of  Scene  III.  Act  II.  of  Macbeth  is 
believed  by  many  critics  and  editors  to  have  been 
interpolated  by  the  actors.  It  is,  on  the  contrary, 
thoroughly  Shakespearean  and  serves  the  purpose 
of  emphasizing  the  fact  that  all  the  members  of  the 
household  of  Macbeth  were  made  drunk  in  order 
that  the  murder  of  Duncan  might  the  better  be 
accomplished.  Even  Macbeth  and  his  wife  drank 
heavily  that  night  so  as  to  harden  themselves  to  do 
the  deed  of  murder,  Lady  Macbeth  saying: 

That  which  hath  made  them  drunk,  hath  made  me  bold : 
What  hath  quench'd  them,  hath  given  me  fire — 

We  find  a  warrant  for  claiming  that  entire  plays 
and  portions  of  others  that  have  been  credited  to 
Shakespeare  do  not  properly  belong  to  him  from  the 
following  facts:  (1)  There  is  a  certain  peculiarity 
of  style  running  through  all  his  productions  that  is 
strictly  Shakespearean — that  is,  common  to  him  and 
foreign  to  all  others.  (2)  There  is  a  harmony  in  his 
meter  that  gives  it  a  character  that  produces  smooth- 
ness or  ruggedness  as  befits  the  impression  to  be 
conveyed.  (3)  The  marvelous  skill  with  which  his 
characters  are  developed,  distinct  traits  being  shown 
in  all.  (4)  Vividness  of  imagery  that  is  invariably 
in  accordance  with  Nature.  (5)  The  strength  of 
action  that  animates  all  his  plays.  (6)  Perfect  con- 
trol over  the  coloring  of  the  emotions  by  the  char- 

[164] 


THE    DISPUTED    PLAYS 

acters.     (7)  A  movement  of  characters  as  though 
governed  by  Nature  and  not  by  man. 

Judging  the  thirty-seven  plays  by  these  standards 
it  appears  to  the  author  that  Pericles,  Timon,  and 
Andronicus  should  be  wholly  rejected,  and  that  The 
First  Part  of  King  Henry  VI.,  King  Henry  VIII., 
and  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew  should  be  accepted 
only  in  part. 


[165] 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  Authorship  of  the  Works  Known 
as   Shakespeare' s 

IT  WAS  not  until  1856,  two  hundred  and  forty 
years  after  the  death  of  William  Shakespeare, 
that  his  right  to  be  considered  the  author  of  plays 
which  for  so  many  years  bore  his  name  was  called 
in  question.  In  January,  1856,  there  appeared  in 
Putnam 's  Magazine  an  article  by  Delia  Bacon  claim- 
ing that  she  had  discovered  the  hidden  fact  that 
the  writings  known  as  Shakespeare's  were  really 
the  work  of  Francis  Bacon. 

Delia  Bacon  was  a  woman  of  education  and  refine- 
ment, the  daughter  of  Rev.  David  Bacon,  an  early 
Western  Missionary,  but  no  relation  to  Francis 
Bacon,  She  was  born  in  Tallmage,  Ohio,  February 
2,  1811.  She  early  conceived  the  notion  that  Francis 
Bacon  was  the  author  of  the  works  ascribed  to  Wil- 
liam Shakespeare,  and  she  became  so  possessed  with 
the  idea  that  she  put  aside  all  other  pursuits  and 
went  to  England  in  1853  in  search  of  facts  to  sup- 
port her  contention.  She  remained  there  five  years, 
underwent  many  privations,  and  after  going  to 
Stratford-on-Avon  with  the  avowed  intention  of 
opening  the  tomb  of  William  Shakespeare  in  search 
of  papers  which  she  believed  to  be  buried  there,  she 
went  insane,  was  returned  to  her  friends  in  Hart- 

[166] 


WORKS   KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

ford,  Conn.,  in  April,  1858,  and  died  there,  September 
2,  1859. 

When  about  thirty-five  years  of  age  Miss  Bacon 
had  a  love  affair  with  a  Rev.  Alexander  McWhorter, 
a  clergyman  ten  years  her  junior,  which  turned  out 
unfortunately  for  her,  and  had  a  distressing  effect 
upon  her  mentality.  This  affair  was  gossiped  about 
in  every  village,  town  and  city  in  New  England,  and 
the  experiences  she  then  underwent  undoubtedly 
account  for  her  subsequent  insanity.  It  is  the  opin- 
ion of  many  good  judges  that  her  mind  became 
unbalanced  at  the  time  of  this  affair,  and  finally 
gave  way  under  her  privations  and  sufferings  while 
in  England.  The  mantle  of  charity,  the  charity  of 
the  world's  silence  concerning  this  epoch  in  the  sad 
life  of  this  well-meaning  woman,  should  be  thrown 
over  her,  for  if  she  erred,  she  certainly  suffered,  and 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  she  "loved  not 
wisely  but  too  well." 

The  result  of  her  research  and  labors  regarding 
the  authorship  of  Shakespeare  is  told  in  a  book  en- 
titled The  Philosophy  of  the  Plays  of  Shakespeare 
Unfolded,  and  it  certainly  must  appear  to  an  un- 
prejudiced reader  that  this  work  contains  many 
and  strong  indications  that  its  author's  mind  was 
unbalanced  at  the  time  she  was  engaged  in  writing 
it. 

At  about  the  same  time  that  Delia  Bacon  voiced 
her  claimed-discovery,  William  Henry  Smith,  an 
Englishman,  put  forth  the  same  idea  in  a  paper 
he  read  before  a  debating  society,  which  he  after- 

[167] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

wards  put  in  the  form  of  a  letter  and  sent  to  Lord 
Ellesmere,  the  chairman  of  the  Shakespearean 
Society.  Mr,  Smith  then  wrote  a  more  detailed 
account  of  his  version  of  the  authorship  of  Shake- 
speare's plays  and  issued  it  in  book  form.  This 
aroused  a  controversy  which  continues  to  this  day. 

It  remained  for  an  American,  Ignatius  Donnelly, 
to  put  forth  a  claim  that  he  had  discovered  a  cipher 
in  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  that  disclosed  the  fact 
that  William  Shakespeare  was  an  illiterate,  gross, 
sensuous  creature,  and  that  the  plays  were  written 
by  Francis  Bacon. 

Ignatius  Donnelly  was  a  politician,  humorist, 
author  and  orator.  He  was  born  in  Philadelphia, 
Pa.,  Nov.  3,  1831,  and  died  in  Minneapolis,  Minn., 
Jan.  2,  1901.  He  was  educated  in  the  public  schools 
of  his  native  city,  studied  law,  and  was  admitted  to  the 
Bar  in  1852.  In  1856  he  removed  to  Minnesota,  where 
he  was  elected  successively  lieutenant-governor  and 
governor  of  that  state.  In  1863  he  was  elected  to  Con- 
gress and  served  three  terms.  These  facts  are  given 
in  order  that  it  may  be  seen  that  Mr.  Donnelly  was 
a  man  of  education  and  experience,  and  to  show  that 
if  he  erred  in  his  conclusions  it  was  not  through 
ignorance.  He  was,  however,  a  man  who  was  in- 
clined to  wander  after  strange  gods,  for  in  1872  he 
left  his  political  party  and  followed  the  leadership 
of  Peter  Cooper,  being  chairman  of  the  National 
Anti-Monopoly  Convention  that  nominated  Cooper 
for  President  of  the  United  States,  and  in  1899  he 

[168] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

was  the  nominee  of  the  Anti-Fusion  wing  of  the 
People 's  party  for  Vice-President. 

Now  let  us  consider  the  claims  as  set  forth  by 
Ignatius  Donnelly  in  what  he  calls  The  Great 
Cryptogram. 

The  Learning  of  Shakespeare.  It  is  claimed  by 
Donnelly  and  others  that  Shakespeare  had  little 
schooling,  and  they  delight  in  quoting  Ben  Jonson's 
"small  Latin  and  less  Greek;"  some  others  say  that 
he  possessed  natural  wit  but  no  art,  and  that  it  was 
the  general  wonder  he  should  be  so  excellent  a  poet 
with  so  little  learning. 

The  known  facts  as  to  Shakespeare's  schooling  are 
these :  His  education  was  received  at  the  grammar 
school  of  his  native  town.  Here  he  studied  the 
English  branches  and  gained  some  knowledge  of 
Latin.  He  is  supposed  to  have  attended  this  school 
for  about  six  years.  The  information  regarding  the 
school  life  of  Shakespeare  is  exceedingly  meager, 
and  nothing  more  regarding  it  than  is  here  set  down 
can  honestly  be  claimed.  There  was,  however,  a 
period  of  five  years  in  his  life,  soon  after  he  went 
to  London,  during  which  we  have  absolutely  no 
information  concerning  him.  The  fact  is,  that  he 
apparently  dropped  out  of  existence  between  the 
years  1587  and  1592  except  for  his  name  being 
attached  to  a  petition  addressed  to  the  Privy  Council 
under  date  of  November  1589.  He  may  have  been 
in  London  all  that  time,  and  it  is  surmised  he  was, 
and  it  is  supposed  that  during  this  gap  in  his  known 
life  he  was  bettering  his  education  generally,  and 

[169] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

particularly  studying  French  and  Italian.  On  March 
3,  1592,  Henry  VI.  was  acted  at  the  Rose  Theatre, 
and  it  is  considered  by  able  authorities  that  this 
play  was  Shakespeare's  First  Part  of  King  Henry 
VI.  If  this  is  correct,  the  year  1592  marks  the 
known  opening  of  Shakespeare's  career  as  an 
author.  In  support  of  this  contention,  Israel  Gol- 
lancz,  in  his  Annals  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare,  cites 
the  following: 

In  this  same  year,  1592,  on  September  4,  died, 
Robert  Greene;  on  the  20th  day  of  the  month  his 
Groatsworth  of  Wit  was  published,  edited  by  Chet- 
tle.  In  this  work  there  is  an  address  to  his  "quon- 
dam acquaintance  that  spend  their  wits  in  making 
plays,  R.  G.  wisheth  a  better  exercise  and  wisdom 
to  prevent  his  extremities."  Marlowe,  Nash,  and 
Peele,  are  probably  the  scholar-plajnyrights  warned 
by  Greene  no  longer  to  trust  the  players.  "Base- 
minded  men  all  three  of  you,  if  by  my  misery  ye  be 
not  warned :  for  unto  none  of  j'ou,  like  me,  sought 
those  burrs  to  cleave  —  those  puppets,  I  mean, 
that  speak  from  our  mouth,  those  antics  garnished 
in  our  colors.  Is  it  not  strange  that  I,  to  whom 
they  have  all  been  beholding :  is  it  not  like  that  you, 
to  whom  they  have  all  been  beholding,  shall  (were 
ye  in  that  case  that  I  am  now)  be  both  at  once  of 
them  forsaken?  Yes,  trust  them  not:  for  there 
is  an  upstart  crow,  beautified  with  our  feathers, 
that  with  his  Tiber's  heart  wrapt  in  a  player's  hide 
supposes  he  is  as  well  able  to  bombast  out  a  blank- 
verse  as  the  best  of  you :  and  being  an  absolute  Jo- 
hannes fac-totum,  is  in  his  own  conceit  the  only 
shake-scene  in  a  country.  0  that  I  might  entreat 
your  rare  wits  to  be  employed  in  more  profitable 
courses:  and  let  these  apes  imitate  your  past  ex- 
cellence, and  never  more  acquaint  them  with  your 
admired  inventions. 

.     .     .     Yet  whilst  you  may,  seek  your  better 

[170] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

masters!  for  it  is  a  pity  men  of  such  rare  wits 
should  be  subject  to  such  rude  grooms," 

The  original  of  the  travestied  line  is  to  be  found 
in  The  Third  Part  of  King  Henry  VI,  "0  tiger's 
heart  wrapt  in  a  woman's  hide,"  and  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  here  we  have  the  first  direct  evidence 
of  Shakespeare's  growing  pre-eminence  as  an  actor 
and  as  a  playwright. 

The  reason  for  Greene's  writing  thus  bitterly  of 
Shakespeare  was  that  the  latter  had  made  use  of 
some  of  the  former's  material  and  worked  it  into 
his  plays.  After  the  appearance  of  the  Groats- 
worth  of  Wit,  Shakespeare  undoubtedly  was 
indebted  to  Greene  for  much  of  the  material  of  The 
Winter's  Tale  and  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew,  and 
previous  to  this  period,  during  Greene's  life,  Shake- 
speare had  not  hesitated  to  work  over  some  of 
Greene's  ideas,  and  for  this  reason  he  called  him 
"an  upstart  crow  beautified  with  our  feathers." 

Three  months  after  the  appearance  of  the  Groats- 
worth  of  Wit,  its  publisher,  Chettle,  issued  this 
apology : 

"I  am  as  sorry  as  if  the  original  fault  had  been 
my  fault,  because  myself  have  seen  his  [i.  e.  Shake- 
speare's] demeanor  no  less  civil  than  he  excellent 
in  the  quality  he  professes,  besides  divers  of  wor- 
ship have  reported  his  uprightness  of  dealing, 
which  argues  his  honesty,  and  his  facetious  grace 
in  writing  that  approves  his  art." 

The  schooling  of  Shakespeare  may  have  been 
limited,  but  extensive  schooling  is  not  necessary  to 
the  making  of  a  poet,  a  prose  writer  or  a  dramatist. 
That  Shakespeare  had  schooling  enough  to  enable 

[171] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

him  to  read  and  write  is  conceded,  that  he  read 
studiously  is  shown  in  his  extensive  knowledge  of 
the  characters  and  events  mentioned  and  narrated 
in  the  Bible,  and  the  fact  that  he  was  a  close  ob- 
server of  Nature  and  a  student  of  man  is  attested 
throughout  his  writings.  He  was,  moreover,  an 
omnivorous  reader,  and  in  his  position  of  part  owner 
of  the  Blackfriars  and  the  Globe  theatres  he  was 
brought  in  contact  with  the  works  of  other  dram- 
atists whose  ideas  he  did  not  hesitate  to  adopt  and 
embellish;  and  it  was  his  great  ability  to  beautify 
and  enlarge  the  ideas  of  others  that  constituted  an 
important  part  of  his  peculiar  genius.  Take  this 
trait  away  from  Shakespeare  and  little  remains, 
consequently  the  works  known  as  Shakespeare's 
cannot  justly  be  attributed  to  a  purely  original 
thinker  and  writer.  He  gathered  information  from 
^11  sources,  worked  the  material  over  in  his  own 
mind,  gave  it  out  in  his  own  manner,  and  it  became, 
in  its  new  garb,  his  own  matter.  It  took  many 
minds  to  furnish  the  mind  of  Shakespeare — his  was 
a  reservoir  into  which  many  tributaries  flowed — ^but 
it  required  not  the  trained  mind  of  a  great  scholar 
to  fashion  his  plays.  It  demanded  rather  the  quali- 
ties of  a  deep  thinker,  a  keen  observer  and  a  clever 
workman ;  and  these  attributes  William  Shakespeare 
possessed.  "The  question  is  not  who  furnished  the 
stone,  or  who  owned  the  quarry,  but  who  chiselled 
the  statue."^ 

The  question  is  then  asked.  Where  are  the  books 

1  From   a  lecture   on   Shakespeare  by  Robert  G.  Ingersoll. 

[172] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

that  he  read,  and  from  which  he  gained  the  informa- 
tion that  was  worked  into  his  plays?  This  question 
cannot  be  fully  answered.  We  know,  however,  that 
such  books  as  he  possessed  would  not  be  found  at  his 
house  in  Stratford,  because  most  of  his  literary 
labors  were  performed  in  London  and  his  books 
would  naturally  be  where  his  work  was  done.  In 
his  native  town,  Rowe  tells  us,  ''the  latter  part  of 
his  life  was  3pent,  as  all  men  of  sense  will  wish  theirs 
may  be,  in  ease,  retirement,  and  the  conversation 
of  his  friends,"  which  tends  to  show  that  little  of 
his  literary  work  was  done  outside  of  London. 

The  Globe  Theatre,  of  which  Shakespeare  was 
part  owner,  and  where,  most  likely,  much  of  his 
literary  labor  was  performed,  was  destroyed  by  fire 
on  June  29,  1613,  and  it  is  possible  that  Shake- 
speare's manuscripts  and  books  were  then  destroyed. 
The  fire  was  very  rapid,  and  practically  nothing 
was  saved  from  the  playhouse. 

In  Shakespeare's  will  he  appoints  his  son-in-law, 
John  Hall,  and  his  daughter  Susanna  his  executors, 
consequently  if  his  books  and  papers  were  then  in 
existence  and  under  his  control  they  would  pass  into 
their  hands.  After  Shakespeare's  death  his  daugh- 
ter Susanna  and  her  husband  became  puritanical  in 
their  religious  views  and  turned  against  the  theatre 
and  all  that  related  to  it.  It  is  likely  they  then  de- 
stroyed all  books  and  papers  pertaining  to  the  stage 
that  had  come  into  their  possession  by  the  will  of 
Shakespeare. 

Here,  then,  are  two  reasonable  explanations  for 

[173] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

the  inability  to  produce  the  books  and  manuscripts 
of  Shakespeare. 

If  Shakespeare  had  been  a  disreputable,  unedu- 
cated person  such  as  the  Baconians  picture  him, 
would  it  not  have  been  ridiculous  for  him  to  put 
forth  claims  to  the  authorship  of  those  wonderful 
productions?  Would  his  fellow  authors  have 
acknowledged  his  claims?  Would  men  like  Essex 
and  Southampton  have  associated  with  him  and 
allowed  him  the  use  of  their  names  and  money?  Is 
it  not  preposterous  to  even  suppose  that  Bacon 
would  select  such  a  man  as  his  mask?  Look  at  the 
question  from  any  or  all  of  these  standpoints,  and 
it  must  appear  that  Shakespeare  was  a  man  of  edu- 
cation and  refinement,  who  was  associated  with 
gentlemen,  and  was  capable  of  producing  the  works 
that  have  for  so  many  years  been  ascribed  to  him. 

It  is  known  that  Shakespeare  placed  no  value, 
except  a  pecuniary  one,  upon  his  plays,  and  after 
they  had  served  their  purpose  at  the  theatre  he 
cared  not  what  became  of  them.  On  the  other  hand, 
Bacon  carefully  and  methodically  arranged  his 
written  matter,  much  of  it  being  preserved  to  this 
day,  consequently  it  is  but  fair  to  assume  that  if 
Bacon  had  produced  works  far  superior  to  any 
which  he  acknowledged  as  his,  he  would  have  re- 
tained the  manuscripts  and  made  some  mention  of 
them  in  his  will,  bequeathing  them  as  a  rich  legacy 
unto  his  issue,*     On  this  question  Donnelly  says:' 

*  And,   dying,  mention  it  within  their  wills, 
Bequeathing  it  as  a  rich  legacy 

Unto   their   issue.  — "Julius   Caesar,"    Act   III.    Scene   II. 

*  "The  Great   Cryptogram,"    page  99. 

[174] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

When  the  crushing  blow  of  shame  and  humili- 
ation fell  ujjon  Francis  Bacon  in  1621,  and  he  ex- 
pected to  die  under  it,  he  hurriedly  drew  a  short 
will.  It  does  not  exceed  in  length  one  page  of 
Spedding's  book,  and  yet  in  this  brief  document 
he  found  time  to  say: 

"My  compositions  unpublished,  or  the  frag- 
ments of  them,  I  require  my  servant  HaiTis  to  de- 
liver to  my  brother  Constable,  to  the  end  that  if 
any  of  these  be  fit,  in  his  judgment,  to  be  pub- 
lished, he  may  accordingly  dispose  of  them.  And 
in  particular  I  wish  the  Elogium  I  wrote.  In 
felicem  memoriam  Eeginae  EUzahetJiae,  may  be 
published.  And  to  my  brother  Constable  I  give 
all  my  books;  and  to  my  servant  Harris  for  his 
service  and  care  fifty  pieces  of  gold,  pursed  up." 

And  when  Bacon  came  to  draw  his  last  will  and 
testament,  he  devoted  a  large  part  of  it  to  the 
preservation  of  his  writings.     He  says: 

"For  my  name  and  memory,  I  leave  it  to  men's 
charitable  speeches,  and  to  foreign  nations,  and 
the  next  ages.  But  as  to  the  durable  part  of  my 
memory,  which  consisteth  of  my  works  and  writ- 
ings, I  desire  my  executors  and  especially  Sir  John 
Constable,  and  my  very  good  friend  Mr.  Bosvile,  to 
take  care  that  of  all  my  writings,  both  of  English 
and  of  Latin,  there  may  be  books  fair  bound  and 
placed  in  the  King's  libraiy,  and  in  the  library 
of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  in  the  library 
of  Trinity  College,  where  myself  was  bred,  and  in 
the  library  of  the  University  of  Oxonford,  and  in 
the  library  of  my  lord  of  Canterbury,  and  in  the 
library  of  Eaton." 

Then  he  bequeaths  his  register  books  of  orations 
and  letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln ;  and  he  further 
directs  his  executors  to  "take  into  their  hands  all 
my  papers  whatsoever,  which  are  either  in  cabinets, 
boxes  or  presses,  and  them  to  seal  up  until  they 
may  at  their  leisure  peruse  them." 

Not  a  word  here  regarding  any  plays  or  dramatic 

writings,  no  mention  of  any  hidden  cipher  whereby 

[175] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

his  ownership  to  works  far  greater  than  any  men- 
tioned or  disposed  of  in  his  will  is  to  be  proved.  Is 
it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that,  if  for  any  reason 
he  desired  to  hide  his  connection  with  the  plays 
from  the  world  during  his  life,  he  would,  at  the 
approach  of  death,  have  made  public  the  fact  that 
would  have  cast  greater  renown  upon  his  life  than 
any  other  of  his  performances?  Would  not  this 
man  who  directs  that  all  his  writings  shall  be  pub- 
lished in  book  form  and  deposited  in  libraries  have 
mentioned  the  fact  that  he  was  the  author  of  Hamlet, 
Macbeth,  Othello,  and  Lear,  if  such  had  been  the  case  ? 
Would  he  not  have  directed  that  all  these  wonderful 
plays  should  be  gathered  together  and  put  in  endur- 
ing shape?  Surely  he  would  not  have  mentioned  the 
Elogium  and  remained  silent  regarding  the  plays. 
A  man  as  jealous  of  his  literary  reputation  as  Bacon 
was  would  never  have  bequeathed  his  register  books 
of  orations  and  letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  and 
made  no  disposition  of  the  greatest  dramatic  litera- 
ture of  all  times.  Bacon  lived  until  1626,  ten  years 
after  the  death  of  Shakespeare,  and  yet  he  put  forth 
no  claim  to  the  authorship  of  the  plays  while  he 
lived,  nor  left  any  written  claim  to  any  title  in  them 
on  his  death.  Such  would  not  be  consistent  with 
our  knowledge  of  the  character  of  Bacon,  if  the 
plays  had  been  the  product  of  his  mind. 

The  claim  put  forth  by  the  Baconians  that  Shake- 
speare was  a  Catholic,  Bacon  a  Protestant,  and  that 
the  plays  contain  evidence  to  show  that  the  author 
was    a    Protestant    and    that   consequently  Bacon 

[176] 


WOEKS    KNOWN    AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

wrote  Shakespeare,  is  dealt  with  in  another  chapter 
of  this  book;  but  here  a  reply  will  be  made  to  the 
outside  evidence  they  offer  concerning  Shakespeare's 
Catholicity. 

We  are  told  that  William  Shakespeare  of  Strat- 
ford died  a  Catholic,  We  have  this  upon  the  au- 
thority of  Rev.  Mr.  Davies,  who  says,  writing  after 
1688,  "he  died  a  Papist."  Upon  the  question  of 
the  politics  of  a  great  man,  the  leader  of  either  one 
of  the  political  parties  of  his  neighborhood  is  likely 
to  be  well  informed;  it  is  in  the  line  of  his  inter- 
ests and  thoughts.  Upon  the  question  of  the  one 
great  man  of  Stratford  we  may  trust  the  testimony 
of  the  clergjonan  of  the  parish.  He  could  hardly 
be  mistaken.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Wil- 
liam Shakespeare  of  Stratford-on-Avon  died  a 
Catholic' 

This  certainly  is  specious  reasoning.  At  first 
glance  it  looks  plausible,  but  when  we  consider  that 
the  evidence  of  the  Reverend  gentleman  is  written 
"after  1688,"  seventy-two  years  after  the  death  of 
Shakespeare,  and  that  he  gives  no  authority  for  his 
statement,  merely  saying,  "he  died  a  Papist,"  the 
thing  becomes  a  trifle  "light  as  air"  and  should  be 
given  no  credence.  In  the  Presidential  campaign  of 
1908  it  was  openly  charged  by  several  clergymen 
that  William  H.  Taft  was  a  heretic,  a  non-Christian, 
and  therefore  unworthy  to  be  the  chief  magistrate  of 
a  Christian  nation.  Is  the  evidence  of  these  men  to 
be  accepted  as  proof  of  the  fact  that  President  Taft 
did  not  believe  in  the  teachings  of  Christ?  These 
men,  however,  were   contemporary  with  President 

*  "The  fireat  Cryptogram,"    Chapter  V.  page   196. 

[177] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Taft,  whereas  the  Rev.  Mr.  Davies  gives  his  evidence 
seventy-two  years  after  Shakespeare  has  ''shuffled 
off  this  mortal  coil."  What,  in  reality,  did  the 
reverend  gentleman  know  of  the  facts?  Nothing. 
His  evidence,  therefore,  amounts  to  nothing.  Had 
it  been  cited  that  Shakespeare  was  thoroughly  fa- 
miliar with  the  services  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  that  he  pictured  her  priests  as  good  and 
holy  men,  depicting  them  in  the  characters  of 
Friar  Laurence  in  Romeo  and  Juliet  and  Friar 
Francis  in  Much  Ado  About  Nothing  as  priests  who 
would  relflect  honor  upon  any  church,  the  evidence 
would  have  been  worthy  of  consideration,  but  when  it 
is  merely  stated  that  a  Rev.  Mr,  Davies  says  ''he 
died  a  Papist"  it  deserves  only  the  consideration 
that  is  given  hearsay  testimony.  The  Baconians 
would  make  "William  Shakespeare  a  Catholic, 
Francis  Bacon  a  liberal  Protestant;  and  they  claim 
that  the  characters  of  the  Friars  are  the  production 
of  the  mind  of  the  tolerant  Protestant. 

The  known  facts  regarding  the  religious  training 
and  belief  of  William  Shakespeare  are  as  follows: 

The  teacher  of  the  school  at  Stratford  at  the  time 
the  boy  Shakespeare  attended  it  was  the  Rev. 
Thomas  Hunt,  Episcopal  curate  of  the  parish  of  Lud- 
dington  which  adjoined  Stratford.  He  was  in 
charge  of  this  school  from  1572  until  1580,  conse- 
quently Shakespeare  was  under  this  Protestant 
clergyman  from  the  time  he  was  eight  years  of  age 
until  he  left  school. 

Richard  Bifield  was  vicar  of  the  Stratford  parish 

[178] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

church  where  William  Shakespeare  and  all  his 
brothers  and  sisters  were  baptized.  He  was  not  only 
a  Protestant,  he  was  also  a  Puritan,  being  known 
throughout  the  country  for  the  severity  of  his  doc- 
trines and  his  zeal  in  carrying  them  out.  Within 
this  Protestant  church,  within  its  chancel,  lie  buried 
Shakespeare,  his  wife,  his  daughter,  his  son-in-law. 
This  certainly  is  strong  evidence  to  show  that  the 
poet  was  not  a  Catholic. 

It  is  not  safe  even  to  assume  that  John  Shake- 
speare, the  father  of  William,  died  a  Roman  Catholic. 
He  was  undoubtedly  bom  a  Roman  Catholic,  most 
Englishmen  of  his  time  were  members  of  that 
church,  the  break  between  Henry  VHI.  and  the  Pope 
not  occurring  until  1531,  but  he  held  office  under 
Queen  Elizabeth,  being  chief  burgess  of  Stratford, 
and  was  compelled  to  conform  to  the  new  religion  in 
order  to  do  so.  By  the  statute  of  Elizabeth,  1558-9, 
all  civil  magistrates  were  compelled  to  take  the 
oath  known  as  the  oath  of  supremacy,  swearing  to 
conform  to  the  then  established  or  reformed  reli- 
gion, and  John  Shakespeare  must  have  done  this 
before  entering  upon  his  duties  as  chief  magistrate 
of  Stratford.  From  all  the  evidence  at  hand  it  is 
only  fair  to  assume  that  William  Shakespeare  was, 
in  religion,  what  is  known  as  a  Protestant,  though 
he  never  could  have  been  a  Puritan. 

Now  who  was  this  Francis  Bacon,  this  "tolerant 
Protestant?" 

Francis  Bacon  was  born  in  London,  England, 
January  22,  1561,  and  died  there  April  9,  1626.    He 

[179] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

was  the  son  of  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon  by  his  second 
wife,  Anne,  daughter  of  Sir  Anthony  Cooke,  form- 
erly tutor  to  Edward  VI.  During  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  the  Bacons  were  supposed  to  be  Protes- 
tants, but  when  Mary  ascended  the  throne  they  con- 
formed to  the  Catholic  religion,  heard  mass  and  took 
the  sacraments.  When  Elizabeth  became  queen 
they  renounced  the  Catholic  Church  and  became 
professed  Protestants,  thus  suiting  their  religious 
professions  to  the  exigencies  of  the  times. 

Sir  Nicholas  Bacon  was  a  famous  English  states- 
man who  was  renowned  for  the  clearness  of  his  views, 
his  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical  matters,  his  learning, 
and  his  wisdom.  He  was  Lord  Keeper  of  the  great 
seal  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign. 

The  mother  of  Francis  Bacon  was  a  woman  of 
considerable  force  of  character,  much  skiU  in  the 
classical  studies,  well  cultured,  and  a  staunch  mem- 
ber of  the  Puritan  Church.  From  this  stock,  then, 
came  the  "tolerant  Protestant." 

Francis  Bacon  was  undoubtedly  a  remarkable 
man.  He  possessed,  perhaps,  the  greatest  philo- 
sophical mind  of  modern  times.  He  was  a  man  of 
education,  refinement  and  deep  learning,  but  he  was 
false  to  friendship  and  morally  corrupt.  When  he 
was  struggling  for  recognition  at  the  court  of  Eliza- 
beth, and  well-nigh  discouraged  over  his  failure  to 
secure  advancement,  the  Earl  of  Essex  interested 
himself  in  his  behalf  and  made  a  strenuous  effort  in 
1595  to  have  him  appointed  Attorney-General  and, 
failing  in  this,  petitioned  the  queen  to  appoint  him 

[180] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

to  the  solicitorship  made  vacant  by  the  promotion 
of  Coke.  Failing  in  this  also,  he  presented  him  with 
a  piece  of  land  worth  about  £1800.  This,  in  those 
days,  was  a  princely  sum,  and  was  given  to  Bacon 
by  the  noble  Earl  to  allay  the  disappointment  he 
experienced  at  his  failure  to  secure  office  under  the 
crown.  How  did  Bacon  repay  this  friend?  When 
Essex,  in  1601,  was  on  trial  for  his  life,  charged 
with  high  treason.  Bacon  was  present  as  one  of  the 
Queen's  counsel,  and  when  the  evidence  was  appar- 
ently much  in  favor  of  the  accused.  Bacon,  who  was 
only  a  secondary  counselor,  unnecessarily  took 
part  in  the  discussion  and  attacked  the  evidence  of 
the  Earl  of  Essex  who  claimed  that  he  had  only 
done  what  was  essential  to  the  preservation  of  his 
life  from  the  attacks  of  his  enemies.  Thus  were  the 
efforts  of  Coke,  the  principal  counsel,  who  had  en- 
deavored to  open  up  a  means  of  escape  for  Essex, 
brought  to  naught,  and  thus  did  Bacon  go  out  of 
his  way  to  blast  the  life  of  the  man  who  had  many 
times  befriended  him  when  nothing  more  than  his 
silence  was  necessary  to  his  salvation. 

Bacon's  moral  turpitude  is  shown  in  his  behavior 
as  judge  when  he  accepted  bribes  to  silence  or  con- 
trol his  convictions.  In  1617  Bacon  became  Lord 
Chancellor  and  was  entrusted  with  the  great  seal, 
under  the  title  of  Lord  Keeper,  but  it  was  not  long 
before  he  as  basely  betrayed  the  confidence  of 
King  James  as  he  had  previously  betrayed  the  friend- 
ship of  the  Earl  of  Essex.  This  chapter  in  his  life  is 
described  thus  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  an 

[181] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

account  which  is  made  as  favorable  for  Bacon  as 
the  circumstances  could  possibly  allow: 

On  March  14th  (1621)  one  Aubrey  appeared 
at  the  bar  of  the  House,  and  charged  Bacon  with 
having  received  from  him  a  sum  of  money  while  his 
suit  was  going  on,  and  with  having  afterwards  de- 
cided against  him.  Bacon's  letter  on  this  occasion 
is  worthy  of  serious  attention ;  he  evidently  thought 
the  charge  was  but  part  of  the  deliberate  scheme 
to  ruin  him  which  had  alreadj'  been  in  progress. 
A  second  accusation  (Egerton's  case)  followed  im- 
mediately after,  and  was  investigated  by  the  House, 
who,  satisfied  that  thej'  had  just  matter  for  repre- 
hension, appointed  the  19th  for  a  conference  with 
the  Lords.  On  that  day  Bacon,  as  he  feared,  was 
too  ill  to  attend.  He  wrote  to  the  Lords  excusing 
his  absence,  requesting  them  to  appoint  a  con- 
venient time  for  his  defense  and  cross-examination 
of  witnesses,  and  imploring  them  not  to  allow  their 
minds  to  be  prejudiced  against  him,  at  the  same 
time  declaring  that  he  would  not  "trick  up  an  in- 
nocency  with  cavilations,  but  plainly  and  ingen- 
uously declare  what  he  knew  or  remembered."  The 
charges  rapidly  accumulated,  but  Bacon  still  looked 
upon  them  as  party  moves,  and  was  in  hopes  of 
defending  himself.  Nor  did  he  seem  to  have  lost 
his  courage,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  common  re- 
ports of  the  day,  though  certainly  they  do  not  ap- 
pear worthy  of  very  much  credit. 

The  notes  bearing  upon  the  interview  which  he 
obtained  with  the  king,  show  that  he  had  begun  to 
see  more  clearly  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  of- 
fences with  which  he  was  charged,  that  he  now  felt 
it  impossible  altogether  to  exculpate  himself,  and 
that  his  hopes  were  directed  towards  obtaining 
some  mitigation  of  his  sentence.  The  long  roll  of 
charges  made  upon  the  19th  of  April  finally  de- 
cided him,  he  gave  up  all  idea  of  defense,  and  wrote 
to  the  king  begging  him  to  show  him  favor  in 
this  emergency.    The  next  day  he  sent  in  a  general 

[182] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

confession  to  the  Lords,  trusting  that  this  would 
be  considered  satisfucto^3^  The  Lords,  however, 
decided  that  it  was  not  sufficient  as  a  ground  for 
their  censure,  and  demanded  a  detailed  and  par- 
ticular confession.  A  list  of  twenty-eight  charges 
was  then  sent  him,  to  which  an  answer  by  letter 
was  required.  On  the  30th  April  his  "confession 
and  humble  submission"  was  handed  in.  In  it,  af- 
ter going  over  the  several  instances,  he  says,  "I  do 
again  confess,  that  on  the  points  charged  upon  me, 
although  they  should  be  taken  as  myself  have  de- 
clared them,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  corruption 
and  neglect ;  for  which  I  am  heartily  and  penitently 
sorry,  and  submit  myself  to  the  judgment,  grace, 
and  mercy  of  the  court."  On  the  3rd  May  after 
considerable  discussion,  the  Lords  decided  upon  the 
sentence,  which  was,  That  he  should  undergo  fine 
and  ransom  of  £40,000;  that  he  should  be  im- 
prisoned in  the  tower  during  the  king's  pleasure; 
that  he  should  be  forever  incapable  of  any  office, 
place,  or  employment  in  the  state  or  common- 
wealth; that  he  should  never  sit  in  parliament;  or 
come  within  the  verge  of  the  court. 
This  is  the  man,  then,  according  to  the  Baconians, 
who  wrote : 

Set  honor  in  one  eye  and  death  i'  the  other. 
And  I  will  look  on  both  indifferently. 

— Julius  Caesar,  Act  I.  Scene  II. 

What  a  farce  for  a  confessed  bribe-taker,  a  seller 

of  justice,  to  prate  of  honor ! 

Mine  honor  keeps  the  weather  of  my  fate: 
Life  every  man  holds  dear;  but  the  dear  man 
Holds  honor  far  more  precious-dear  than  life. 
— Troilus  and  Cressida,  Act  V.  Scene  III. 
For  life,  I  prize  it 
As  I  weigh  grief,  which  I  would  spare :   For  honor, 
'Tis  a  derivative  from  me  to  mine. 
And  only  that  I  stand  for. 

— The  Winter's  Tale,  Act  III.  Scene  II. 

[183] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Does  this  sound  as  though  it  came  from  the  man 
who  penned,  "I  do  again  confess,  that  on  the  points 
charged  upon  me,  although  they  should  he  taken  as 
myself  declared  them,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  cor- 
ruption and  neglect?"^  Would  one  who  stands  only 
for  honor,  beseech  his  king  to  mitigate  the  just  pun- 
ishment of  a  confessed  crime?  The  two  characters 
as  here  depicted  will  not  blend.  Bacon  was  not 
Shakespeare. 

1.  "No  nobler  soul,  no  broader  mind  ever  existed 
than  that  revealed  in  the  Plays."* 

2.  Bacon  did  not  possess  a  noble  soul. 

3.  Therefore,  Bacon  did  not  write  the  Plays. 
Donnelly,    in    his    Cryptogram,    aims    to    prove 

Bacon's  right  to  the  authorship  of  the  Plays  by 
means  of  the  similarity  of  expressions  used  in  the 
plays  and  those  used  by  Bacon  in  his  known  writ- 
ings. Let  us  examine  some  of  Donnelly's  compari- 
sons: 

We  turn  to  Bacon,  and  we  find  him  referring 
to  the  common  people  as  a  scum.  The  same  word 
is  used  in  Shakespeare.^ 

Here  is  certainly  a  great  discovery!  Just  think! 
Bacon  refers  to  the  common  people  as  scum,  Shakes- 
peare also  uses  the  word.  Therefore,  Bacon  wrote 
Shakespeare !  Would  it  not  be  as  logical  to  say  that 
Shakespeare  wrote  Bacon?  This  same  false  reason- 
ing pervades  the  whole  of  Donnelly's  claim.  For 
instance : 

^Bacon's    "Confession  and  Humble  Submission." 

*  "The    Great    Crypotgram,"    Chapter   IV.    page    174. 

"  "The  Great  Cryptogram,"   Cliapter  IV.  page   176. 

[184]  


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

"Bacon  speaks  of 

'The  vulgar,   to   whom   nothing   moderate   is 
grateful.'* 
"This  is  the  same  thought  we  find  in  Shakespeare : 

'What  would  you  have,  your  curs, 

That  like  nor  peace  nor  war.'  "* 

Where  is  there  anything  analagous  in  these  two 
expressions?  One  states  that  nothing  that  is  mod- 
erate is  grateful  to  the  vulgar,  while  the  other  asks 
what  they,  who  like  neither  peace  nor  war,  would 
have.  Surely  there  is  no  such  similarity  of  expres- 
sion here  as  to  warrant  any  one  in  claiming  that 
both  extracts  emanated  from  the  same  mind. 

In  The  Great  Cryptogram,  pages  176  and  177,  we 
find: 

"Again  Bacon  says: 

'The  ignorant  and  rude  multitudes.'^" 
*If  fame  be  from  the  common  people,  it  is 
commonly   false   and   naught.' ^^ 
"This    is    very    much    the    thought    expressed    in 
Shakespeare : 

'The  fool  multiude  that  choose  by  show, 
Not  learning,  more  than  the  fond  eye  doth 
teach.' ^' 
"And  also  in 

'He's  loved  of  the  distracted  multitude. 
Who  like  not  in  their  judgment,  but  their 
eyes.''''^* 

Where  is  the  connection  or  the  similarity? 

"Bacon  says: 

'For  in  all  times,  in  the  opinion  of  the  mul- 
titude, witches  and  old  women  and  im- 

*  "Wisdom  of  the  Ancients" — Diomedes. 

•  "Coriolanus, "    Act  I.   Scene   I. 
^0  "Wisdom   of  the   Ancients." 
n  "Essay  of   Praise." 

12  "Merchant  of  Venice,"   Act  II.  Scene  IX. 
'»  "Hamlet,"   Act  IV.  Scene  III. 

[185] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

posters    have    had    a    competition    with 
physicians.'^* 
"And  again  he  says: 

'The  envious  and  malignant  disposition  of  the 
vulgar,  for  when  fortune's  favorites  and 
great  potentates  come  to  ruin,  then  do 
the  common  people  rejoice,  setting,  as  it 
were,  a  crown  upon  the  head  of  revenge.' ^^ 
"And  again  he  says: 

'The  nature  of  the  vulgar,  always  swollen  and 
malignant,  still  broaching  new  scandals 
against  superiors;  .  .  .  the  same  natural 
disposition  of  the  people  still  leaning  to 
viler  sort,  being  impatient  of  peace  and 
tranquillity.'^* 
"Says  Shakespeare: 

'That  like  not  peace  nor  war.'^'' 
"And  Bacon  says  again : 

'He  would  never  endure  that  the  base  multi- 
tude   should   frustrate   the   authority   of 
Parliament.'^® 
"See  how  the  same  words  are  employed  by  both. 
Bacon  says: 

'The  base  multiude.' 
"Shakespeare  says : 

'The  rude  multitude  —  the  base  vulgar.'"*' 

Now  wliat  is  there  in  all  this  to  bolster  up  the  claim 
that  Bacon  wrote  Shakespeare?  Absolutely  noth- 
ing. It  is  astonishing  that  a  man  of  intelligence 
should  cite  such  instances  as  are  here  given  as  proof 
of  similarity  between  the  writings  of  the  two  men, 
because  that  quality  is  certainly  lacking  in  all  the 
examples  that  he  quotes. 

^*  "Advancement  of  Learning,"   Book  II. 

1^  "Wisdom  of  the  Ancients" — Nemesis. 

16  "Wisdom   of  the  Ancients." 

^''  "Coriolanus,"   Act  I.   Scene  I. 

''■^  "History  of  Henry  VII." 

i»  "The  Tempest,"    Act  I.   Scene  II. 

[186] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 


The  silliness  of  Donnelly's  reasoning  is  beautifully 
illustrated  by  Shakespeare  in  Act  IV.,  Scene  II.,  of 
The  Second  Part  of  King  Henry  VI. 

Enter  some,  briny  ing  forward  the  clerk  of  Chatham. 

Smith.     The  clerk  of  Chatliam:   he  can  write  and 

read  and  cast  aecompt. 

0  monstrous! 

We  took  him  setting  of  boys'  copies. 
Here's  a  villain! 
Has  a  book  in  his  pocket  with  red  letters 

in  't. 
Nay,  then,  he  is  a  conjuror. 
Nay,  he  can  make  obligations,  and  write 

court-hand. 

1  am  sorry  for  't:  the  man  is  a  proper 
man,  of  mine  honour;  unless  I  find 
him  guilty,  he  shall  not  die. 

Come  hither,  sirrah,  I  must  examine  thee : 
what  is  thy  name? 

Emmanuel. 

They  used  to  write  it  on  the  top  of  let- 
ters :  'twill  go  hard  with  you. 
Let  me  alone.  Dost  thou  use  to  write 
thy  name?  or  hast  thou  a  mark  to 
thyself,  like  an  honest  plain-dealing 
man? 

Sir,  I  thank  God,  I  have  been  so  well 
brought  up  that  I  can  write  my 
name. 

He  hath  confessed:  away  with  him!  he's 
a  villain  and  a  traitor. 

Away  with  him,  I  say!  hang  him  with 
his  pen  and  ink-horn  about  his  neck. 


Cade. 
Smith. 
Cade. 
Smith. 

Cade. 
Dick. 

Cade. 


Clerk. 
Dick. 

Cade. 


Clerk. 


All. 


Cade. 


The  Author  op  the  Plays  Was  an  Actor 

Let  us  consider  what  evidence  there  is  in  the  plays 
of  Shakespeare  to  justify  the  assertion  that  their 
author  was  an  actor. 

[187] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

The  writer  of  the  plays  evinces  in  their  construc- 
tion an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  art  of  playwrit- 
ing.  He  displays  an  insight  into  stagecraft  that 
equals  the  beauty  of  his  poetry  and  the  brilliancy 
of  his  philosophy.  He  shows  by  the  phraseology, 
the  use  of  technical  terms,  and  in  the  many  refer- 
ences to  the  stage  and  to  players,  by  the  very  atmos- 
phere that  envelopes  the  plays,  that  they  are  the 
product  of  one  who  lived  in  the  mimic  world.  The 
plays  show  their  author  understood  so  thoroughly 
the  drawing  and  characterizing  of  parts,  the  ar- 
rangement of  incidents  and  scenes,  the  development 
of  a  plot,  and  the  presentation  of  a  play  as  to  prove 
that  the  knowledge  was  such  as  could  be  gained  only 
by  one  who  had  lived  the  life  of  an  actor  and  studied 
the  workings  of  the  art  of  acting  at  first  hand.  Here 
is  the  proof: 

Hamlet  abounds  with  references  to  the  stage  and 
the  actor's  art,  and  contains  the  "advice  to  the 
players"  which  is  an  epitome  of  instruction  in  the 
art  of  acting.  Here  we  have  the  sage,  direct  advice 
of  the  seasoned  player,  and  not  the  m.ere  empty 
general  admonition  of  the  critic.  Ponder  over  this 
passage : 

Speak  the  speech,  I  pray  you,  as  I  pronounced  it 
to  you,  trippingly  on  the  tongue :  but  if  you  mouth 
it,  as  many  of  your  players  do,  I  had  as  lief  the 
town-crier  spoke  my  lines.  Nor  do  not  saw  the 
air  too  much  with  your  hands,  thus;  but  use  all 
gently:  for  in  the  very  torrent,  tempest,  and,  as 
I  may  say,  whirlwind  of  your  passion,  you  must 
acquire  and  beget  a  temperance  that  may  give  it 
smoothness.    0,  it  offends  me  to  the  soul  to  hear  a 

[188] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

robustious  periwig-pated  fellow  tear  a  passion  to 
tatters,  to  very  rags,  to  split  the  ears  of  the  ground- 
lings, who,  for  the  most  part,  are  capable  of  noth- 
ing but  inexplicable  dumb-shows  and  noise:  I 
would  have  such  a  fellow  whipped  for  o'erdoing 
Termagant;  it  out-herods  Herod:  pray  you,  avoid 
it. 

Be  not  too  tame  neither,  but  let  your  own  dis- 
cretion be  your  tutor:  suit  the  action  to  the  word, 
the  word  to  the  action ;  with  this  special  observance, 
that  you  o'erstep  not  the  modesty  of  nature:  for 
anything  so  overdone  is  from  the  purpose  of  play- 
ing, whose  end,  both  at  the  first  and  now,  was  and 
is,  to  hold,  as  'twere,  the  mirror  up  to  nature;  to 
show  virtue  her  own  featui'e,  scorn  her  own  image, 
and  the  very  age  and  body  of  the  time  his  form  and 
pressure.  Now  this  overdone,  or  come  tardy  off, 
though  it  make  the  unskilful  laugh,  cannot  but 
make  the  judicious  grieve;  the  censure  of  the  which 
one  must,  in  your  allowance,  o'erweigh  a  whole 
theatre  of  others.  0,  there  be  players  that  I  have 
seen  play,  and  heard  others  praise,  and  that  highly, 
not  to  speak  it  profanely,  that,  neither  having  the 
accent  of  Christians,  nor  the  gait  of  Christian, 
pagan,  nor  man,  have  so  strutted  and  bellowed,  that 
I  have  thought  some  of  nature's  journe^^men  had 
made  men,  and  not  made  them  well,  they  imitated 
humanity  so  abominably. 

.  .  .  And  let  those  that  play  your  clowns 
speak  no  more  than  is  set  down  for  them :  for  there 
be  of  them  that  will  themselves  laugh,  to  set  on 
some  quantity  of  barren  spectators  to  laugh  too, 
though  in  the  meantime  some  necessary  question  of 
the  play  be  then  to  be  considered;  that's  villainous, 
and  shows  a  most  pitiful  ambition  in  the  fool  that 
uses  it.^° 

Here  we  have  the  most  perfect  lesson  in  dramatic 

art  that  ever  was  penned.    No  one  not  thoroughly 

versed  in  the  principles  of  acting  could  have  written 

2  0  "Hamlet,"    Act   III.    Scene   II. 

[189] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

it.  A  critic,  accustomed  to  witnessing  plays  from 
the  auditorium,  would  not  have  possessed  an  insight 
into  the  technique  of  acting  sufficient  to  enable  him 
to  express  himself  so  clearly  regarding  the  purpose 
of  the  player's  art.  The  man  who  wrote  these  in- 
structions to  the  players  was  not  only  a  critic,  nor 
only  an  actor,  but  he  was  accustomed  to  drilling 
actors.  He  was  a  stage  director  who  was  proficient 
in  all  the  requirements  of  staging  a  play;  he  knew 
how  an  actor  should  make  his  "points"  and  he 
knew  how  to  drill  him  in  order  that  these  "points" 
should  be  made.  He  tells  the  player  to  "speak  the 
speech  trippingly  on  the  tongue, ' '  none  but  a  person 
accustomed  to  using  his  voice  in  public  would  be  apt 
to  so  express  himself.  A  speaker  knows  how  nec- 
essary it  is  to  get  the  voice  out  of  the  mouth  on  to 
the  lips,  for  only  by  so  doing  can  the  "mouthing" 
be  avoided,  and  the  "mouthing"  is  aptly  compared 
with  the  bellowing  of  the  town-crier  who  lustily 
cries  out,  making  much  noise  but  producing  little 
speech.  A  writer  might  advise  against  "mouthing" 
but  he  would  not  possess  the  expert  knowledge  nec- 
essary for  him  to  give  the  positive  instruction  to 
speak  "trippingly  on  the  tongue."  The  advice  "nor 
do  not  saw  the  air  too  much"  is  such  as  would  be 
given  by  an  able  stage-manger  to  an  actor  who  was 
inclined  to  "overdo"  his  part;  and  the  statement 
that  he  "must  acquire  and  beget  a  temperance  that 
may  give  it  smoothness"  is  such  a  wise  one,  that  its 
wisdom  would  not  likely  be  discovered  except  by  a 
man  practiced  in  the  art  of  holding  "the  mirror  up 

[190] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

to  nature."  It  has  been  claimed  that  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  law  shown  in  the  plays  of  Shakespeare 
indicate  that  their  author  was  a  lawyer,  but  this 
advice  to  the  players  could  never  have  originated 
in  the  brain  of  a  man  unless  that  man  was  a  master 
of  the  art  of  acting.  It  is  true  that  the  author  of  the 
plays  shows  a  knowledge  of  law  and  legal  procedure, 
but  nowhere  in  his  works  is  to  be  found  so  keen  an 
insight  into  legal  questions  as  is  displayed  regarding 
matters  pertaining  to  the  stage.  The  legal  informa- 
tion might  have  been  gained  from  books,  but  the 
dramatic  knowledge  could  have  been  obtained  by 
stage  experience  alone. 

1.  The  author  of  Shakespeare's  plays  was  an  actor. 

2.  Bacon  was  not  an  actor. 

3.  Therefore,  Bacon  did  not  write  Shakespeare. 
Not  only  does  Shakespeare  display  his  knowledge 

of  acting,  but  he  shows  the  influence  the  actor's  life 
had  on  him  by  referring  in  many  of  the  plays  to 
things  that  pertain  to  the  stage.  For  instance:  He 
introduces  a  play  in  Hamlet,  The  Murder  of  Gon- 
zago;  in  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream,  Pyramus  and 
Thisbe;  in  Love's  Labor's  Lost,  The  Nine  Worthies; 
and  in  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew,  the  players  in 
the  Induction. 

In  Hamlet,  Act  II.  Scene  II.,  Hamlet,  speaking  of 
the  players,  remarks: 

How  chances  it  they  travel  ?  their  residence,  both 
in  reputation  and  profit,  was  better  both  ways. 

Here  we  have  evidence  that  the  writer  of  these  lines 

was  aware   of  the  fact  that  an  actor  suffered  in 

[191] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

prestige  and  profit  when  forced  to  leave  the  city 
and  go  into  the  smaller  places  in  search  of  audiences. 
This  fact  might  be  known  by  some  not  connected 
with  the  theatres,  but  they  would  not  be  apt  to 
make  note  of  it. 

Shakespeare  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Polonius  the 
following : 

The  best  actors  in  the  world,  either  for  tragedy, 
comedy,  history,  pastoral,  pastoral-comical,  histori- 
cal-pastoral, tragical-historical,  tragical-comical- 
historical-pastoral,  scene  individable,  or  poem  un- 
limited; Seneca  cannot  be  too  heavy,  nor  Plautus 
too  light.  For  the  law  of  writ  and  the  liberty, 
these  are  the  only  men. 

Here  we  have  the  different  kinds  of  plays  defined  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  show  the  definer  to  be  versed 
in  the  many  styles  of  plays.  After  enumerating  the 
principal  classes,  such  as  tragedy,  comedy,  etc.,  the 
playwright  mentions  individable  (that  is,  not  to  be 
classed  as  either  tragedy,  or  comedy)  and  unlimited 
(that  is,  not  limited  by  a  definition),  and  this  par- 
ticular classification  undoubtedly  shows  a  know- 
ledge of  the  technical  terms  of  the  playwright's  art 
such  as  could  only  be  obtained  by  one  experienced 
in  its  practice.  "For  the  law  of  writ  and  the  lib- 
erty" is  also  a  professional  term;  meaning,  speaking 
the  lines  as  they  are  set  down  (writ)  by  the  author 
or  extemporizing  (liberty)  as  the  actor  recites. 
The  word  "gag"  is  now  used  among  actors 
to  signify  the  idea  that  "liberty"  conveyed  in  the 
days  of  Shakespeare.  Actors  now  often  speak  of 
gagging  a  part;  that  is,  putting  one's  own  words 

[192] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

or  speeches  into  a  part  or  introducing  business  into 
a  scene  other  than  as  arranged  by  the  author  or 
stage  manager. 

In  Act  II,  Scene  II.  Hamlet  speaks  of  the  players 
as  being  "the  abstract  and  brief  chronicles  of  the 
time,"  and  states  that  "after  your  death  you  were 
better  have  a  bad  epitaph,  than  their  ill  report  while 
you  live."  He  also  in  the  same  scene  describes  the 
feigned  passion  of  an  actor,  and  states  that  he  has 
heard  that  remorse  has  often  been  aroused  in  the 
breast  of  a  guilty  person  by  attendance  at  a  play 
where,  "by  the  very  cunning  of  the  scene,"  they 
have  confessed  their  transgression.  The  scene  ends 
with  the  sentence: 

The  play's  the  thing 
Wherein  I'll  catch  the  conscience  of  the  king. 

Thus,  in  The  Tragedy  of  Hamlet,  we  find  a  mar- 
velous lesson  in  the  art  of  acting,  a  composition  that 
bears  the  strongest  evidence  of  having  been  written 
by  one  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  staging  of 
plays;  the  use  of  many  words  common  only  to 
actors;  and  a  general  atmosphere  surrounding  the 
entire  play  that  is  indicative  of  its  author's  close 
association  with  players. 

Other  references  in  the  Plays  to  the  stage,  the 
actor,  and  the  actor's  art  are  as  follows: 

Macbeth,  Act.  V.  Scene  V. 

Out,  out,  brief  candle : 
Life's  but  a  walking  shadow;  a  poor  player, 
That  struts  and  frets  his  hour  upon  the  stage, 
And  then  is  heard  no  more. 

[193] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

Troilus  and  Cressida,  Act  I,  Scene  III. 

Sometime,  great  Agamemnon, 
Thy  topless  deputation  he  puts  on; 
And,  like  a  strutting  player, — whose  conceit 
Lies  in  his  hamstring,  and  doth  think  it  rich 
To  hear  the  wooden  dialogue  and  sound 
'Twixt  his  stretched  footing  and  the  scaffoldage, — 
Such  to-be-pitied  and  o'er-wrested  seeming 
He  acts  thy  greatness  in : 

The  Merchant  of  Venice,  Act  I.  Scene  I. 

I  hold  the  world  but  as  the  world,  Gratiano; 
A  stage,  where  every  man  must  play  a  part,  ' 
And  mine  a  sad  one. 

The  Taming  of  the  Shrew,  Induction,  Scene  II. 

Your  honor's   players,  hearing  your  amendment. 
Are  come  to  play  a  pleasant  comedy; 
For  so  your  doctors  hold  it  very  meet, 
Seeing  too  much  sadness  hath  eonereal'd  your  blood, 
And  melancholy  is  the  nurse  of  frenzy : 
Therefore,  they  thought  it  good  you  hear  a  play, 
And  frame  your  mind  to  mirth  and  merriment. 
Which  bars  a  thousand  harms,  and  lengthens  life. 

As  You  Like  It,  Act  11.  Scene  VII. 

All  the  world's  a  stage. 
And  all  the  men  and  women  merely  players: 
They  have  their  exits,  and  their  entrances; 
And  one  man  in  his  time  plays  many  parts. 
His  acts  being  seven  ages.    At  first,  the  infant. 
Mewling  and  puking  in  the  nurse's  arms: 
Then,  the  whining  school-boy,  with  his  satchel, 
And  shining  morning  face,  creeping  like  snail 
Unwillingly  to  school :    And  then  the  lover. 
Sighing  like  furnace,  with  a  woful  ballad 
Made  to  his  mistress'  eyebrow:    Then,  a  soldier. 
Full  of  strange  oaths,  and  bearded  like  the  pard, 
Jealous  in  honor,  sudden  and  quick  in  quarrel. 
Seeking  the  bubble  reputation 
Even  in  the  cannon's  mouth:   And  then,  the  justice, 

[194] 


WORKS    KNOWN    AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

In  fair  round  belly,  with  good  capon  lin'd, 

With  eyes  severe,  and  beard  of  formal  cut, 

Full  of  wise  saws  and  modern  instances; 

And  so  he  plays  his  part:   The  sixth  age  shifts 

Into  the  lean  and  slipper'd  pantaloon, 

With  spectacles  on  nose,  and  pouch  on  side; 

His  youthful  hose,  well  sav'd,  a  world  too  wide 

For  his  shrunk  shank;  and  his  big  manly  voice, 

Turning  again  toward  childish  treble,  pipes 

And  whistles  in  his  sound :  Last  scene  of  all. 

That  ends  this  strange  eventful  history. 

Is  second  childishness,  and  mere  oblivion; 

Sans  teeth,  sans  eyes,  sans  taste,  sans  everything. 

The  strongest  proof  that  William  Shakespeare 
wrote  the  plays  attributed  to  him  is  to  be  found 
within  the  plays  themselves,  but  it  is  well  to  answer 
with  outside  evidence  some  of  the  assertions  made 
by  those  who  would  rob  him  of  his  honors.  One 
assertion  is  that  there  is  no  eontempory  reference  to 
him  at  all  except  as  an  actor;  another,  that  he  was 
looked  upon  as  a  "deserving  man"  a  "Joannes  Fac- 
totum" among  the  players.  It  is  easy  to  prove  both 
these  statements  false. 

Ben  Jonson  knew  William  Shakespeare  as  a  man, 
an  actor,  and  an  author,  in  his  Timber  of  Discov- 
eries, Being  Observations  on  Men  and  Manners, 
written  about  1620,  but  not  printed  until  1641,  on 
De  Shakespeare  nostrati,  he  has  this  to  say : 

I  remember  the  players  have  often  mentioned  it 
as  an  honor  to  Shakespeare,  that  in  his  writing 
(whatsoever  he  penned)  he  never  blotted  out  a  line. 
My  answer  hath  been,  'Would  he  had  blotted  a 
thousand,'  which  they  thought  a  malevolent  speech. 
I  had  not  told  posterity  this  but  for  their  ignorance 
who   chose   that   circumstance   to   commend   their 

[195] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEAEE 

friend  by  wherein  he  most  faulted;  and  to  justify 
mine  own  candor,  for  I  loved  the  man,  and  do 
honor  his  memory  on  this  side  idolatry  as  much  as 
any.  He  was,  indeed,  honest,  and  of  an  open  and 
free  nature;  had  an  excellent  phantasy,  brave  no- 
tions, and  gentle  expressions,  wherein  he  flowed 
with  that  facility  that  sometimes  it  was  necessary 
he  should  be  stopped.  'Sufflaminandus  erat,"^  as 
Augustus  said  of  Haterius.  His  wit  was  in  his  own 
power;  would  the  rule  of  it  had  been  so,  too! 
Many  times  he  fell  into  those  things,  could  not 
escape  laughter,  as  when  he  said  in  the  person  of 
Caesar,  one  speaking  to  him,  'Caesar,  thou  dost  me 
wrong.'  He  replied,  'Caesar  did  never  wrong  but 
with  just  cause;""  and  such  like,  which  were  ridic- 
ulous. But  he  redeemed  his  vices  with  his  virtues. 
There  was  ever  more  in  him  to  be  praised  than  to 
be  pardoned. 

This  certainly  is  contemporary  reference  to  him  as 
an  author.  Ben  Jonson  was  intimately  acquainted 
with  Shakespeare  the  actor,  sang  praises  to  Shake- 
speare the  author,  and  never  intimated  but  that  he 
knew  the  man  with  whom  he  associated  to  be  both 
the  actor  and  the  author. 

In  1598,  Francis  Meres  issued  a  book  entitled 
^^Palladis  Tamia,  Wit's  Treasury,  being  the  Second 
Part  of  Wit's  Common-wealth."    One  section  of  this 

*i  "He   ought  to   have   been   clogged." — Seneca. 
2  2  The  passage  now  reads  thus: 

Know,    Caesar   doth   not   wrong;    nor   without   cause 
will  he  be  satisfied. 

— "Julius  Caesr, "  Act  III.  Scene  I. 
In  reference  to  this  point  Hudson  says : 

Some  question  has  been  made  whether  this  passage  has  reached 
us  the  same  as  originally  written ;  and  the  doubt  has  grown 
from  a  remark  in  Ben  Jonson 's  Discoveries.  We  agree  with 
Mr.  Collier  that  Jonson  was  speaking  only  from  memory,  which, 
so  himself  confesses,  was  "shaken  with  age  now  and  sloth;" 
and  so  misquoted  the  Poet.  Still  it  is  not  impossible  that  he 
may  have  quoted  rightly  from  the  play  as  he  had  heard  it  on 
the  stage,  and  that  Shakespeare  may  have  afterwards  corrected 
the  passage. 

[196] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

work  is  headed  "A  Comparative  Discourse  of  our 
English  Poets,  with  the  Greek,  Latin,  and  Italian 
Poets,"  and  among  many  other  references  to  Shake- 
speare is  the  following: 

As  the  soul  of  Euphorbus  was  thought  to  live 
in  Pythagoras,  so  the  sweet,  witty  soul  of  Ovid  Kves 
in  mellifuous  and  honey-tongued  Shakespeare: 
witness  his  Venus  and  Adonis,  his  Luerece,  his 
sugared  Sonnets  among  his  private  friends,  etc. ! 

Here  is  an  author,  writing  at  the  period  when  the 
actor  Shakespeare  was  making  his  reputation  as  a 
poet  and  dramatist,  who  testifies  to  his  (the  actor's) 
being  known  as  the  "honey-tongued  Shakespeare," 
and  to  the  fact  that  he  distributed  **his  sugared 
Sonnets  among  his  private  friends."  These  friends 
knew  the  man  Shakespeare  intimately,  and  no  ques- 
tion was  raised  during  his  lifetime  regarding  the 
identity  of  the  actor  with  that  of  the  author,  and  it 
remained  for  a  poor,  distracted,  and  mistaken 
woman,  two  hundred  and  forty  years  after  the  death 
of  William  Shakespeare,  to  put  forth  a  wild  theory, 
made  of  "trifles  light  as  air,"  which  has  been  seized 
upon  and  expanded  by  succeeding  writers  who 
would  long  ago  have  been  forgotten  had  it  not  been 
for  attaching  themselves  (even  in  an  inglorious  man- 
ner) to  the  undying  name  of  the  matchless  poet  and 
master  playwright  of  all  ages. 

Shakespeare  accumulated  what,  in  his  day,  was 
considered  a  large  sum  of  money,  whereas,  had  he 
earned  only  the  salary  of  an  ordinary  actor,  were 
he  the  mere  "deserving  man"  and  "Johannes  facto- 

[  197  ] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

turn"  as  stated  by  Greene  in  his  spleen,  and  harped 
upon  by  the  Baconians,  he  never  could  have  done 
so.  During  the  life  of  Shakespeare  no  special  value 
was  placed  on  the  plays  as  literary  property,  nor 
was  any  serious  effort  made  to  preserve  them.  Had 
Bacon  been  the  author  of  these  plays,  is  it  not  fair 
to  assume  that  he  would  have  profited  pecuniarily 
from  their  production  and  retained  copies  of  them? 
He  certainly  loved  money  sufficiently  well  to  lay 
hold  of  it  at  every  opportunity,  and  was  exceedingly 
jealous  of  his  literary  productions.  From  all  the 
evidence  and  circumstances  at  hand  we  are  justified 
in  thinking  that  the  man  who  wrote  the  works 
known  as  Shakespeare's  did  so  for  a  money  consid- 
eration and  no  other.  As  soon  as  Shakespeare 
received  his  financial  reward  by  producing  the  plays 
on  the  stage  he  cared  not  what  became  of  them,  but 
was  content  to  allow  them  to  pass  out  of  existence ; 
and  had  it  not  been  that  some  of  his  fellow  actors'^ 
took  the  pains  to  gather  these  plays  together,  and 
to  issue  them  in  1623,  seven  years  after  the  death 
of  their  author,  such  most  likely  would  have  been 
their  fate. 

The  writings  that  are  known  to  be  Bacon's  differ 
in  every  conceivable  manner  from  those  ascribed  to 
Shakespeare,  and  were  there  absolute  proof  that 
William  Shakespeare  of  Stratford-on-Avon  did  not 
write  the  plays  attributed  to  him,  it  would  be  im- 
possible, from  a  comparison  of  those  plays  with  the 

'^  Heming  and  Condell,  in  their  dedication  of  the  folio  of  1623,  say 
they  have  collected  the  plays  "only  to  keep  the  memory  of  so 
worthy  a  friend  and  fellow  alive,  as  was  our  Shakespeare." 

[198] 


WORKS    KNOWN   AS    SHAKESPEARE'S 

known  writings  of  Bacon,  to  attribute  to  Bacon 
their  authorship.  It  is  plainly  seen  that  the  author 
of  King  Lear  was  the  author  of  Hamlet,  but  there  is 
no  internal  evidence  to  show  that  the  author  of 
Novum  Organum  wrote  those  plays. 

In  conclusion :  Bacon  never  claimed  the  authorship 
of  the  plays ;  from  an  examination  of  his  known  pro- 
ductions it  is  plain  that  he  could  not  have  written 
them;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  they  bear  every 
internal  evidence  to  show  they  emanated  from  a 
man  such  as  we  know  Shakespeare  to  have  been; 
it  was  acknowledged  by  his  contemporary  writers 
and  his  fellow  actors  that  he  did  produce  them, 
and  he  had  been  in  undisputed  possession  of  them 
for  two  hundred  and  forty  years.  It  seems  clear 
that,  taking  all  these  facts  into  consideration,  it 
should  be  conceded  that  William  Shakespeare  wrote 
the  plays  ascribed  to  him. 


[199] 


CHAPTER  X 

The  Genius  of  Shakespeare 

IN  considering  the  genius  of  Shakespeare  we  should 
weigh  carefully  the  meaning  of  that  word,  be- 
cause upon  the  premise  thus  laid  down  depends  the 
conclusion  that  may  be  deduced  from  the  evidence 
upon  which  the  verdict  must  be  rendered.  If  genius 
means  the  possession  of  an  extraordinary  faculty  for 
original  creation,  then  Shakespeare  was  no  genius. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  means,  as  Emerson  is 
inclined  to  define  it,  being  receptive,  then  must  we 
pronounce  him  one  of  the  greatest  geniuses  of  all 
time.  He  exemplified,  as  never  did  man  before  or 
since,  that  undulating  power  in  Nature  which  is  so 
eloquently  described  by  Emerson  in  The  American 
Scholar.  That  principle  in  Nature  which  is  shown 
throughout  all  her  works:  in  light  and  darkness;  in 
heat  and  cold ;  in  health  and  sickness ;  in  hunger  and 
satisfaction;  in  life  and  death.  Shakespeare  drank 
into  his  being  the  stories  that  Nature  told  him,  he 
appropriated  the  songs  of  other  men,  but  he  gave  them 
back  again  to  the  world  enriched  with  the  warmth  of 
his  own  soul.  Thus  did  he  inhale  the  glories  and 
truths  of  Nature,  the  productions  of  Plutarch,  Mar- 
lowe and  Greene,  the  plots  of  Italian  and  French 
authors,  and  the  chronicles  of  Holinshed,  but  his  ex- 
halations gave  us  his  own  immortal  works.  His  ability 
to  learn  from  the  book  of  Nature  and  to  tell  her 

[200] 


THE    GENIUS    OF    SHAKESPEARE 

stories  anew,  his  capacity  to  extract  from  the  works 
of  men  the  grains  of  value  that  were  encased  in  masses 
of  matter,  his  power  of  smelting  these  scattered  grains 
of  thought  and  causing  them  to  assume  a  form  large 
enough  to  be  of  marketable  value  in  the  literature  of 
the  world,  may  surely  be  considered  to  constitute 
genius. 

In  his  descriptions  of  material  nature  he  was  in 
harmony  with  all  its  works.  AVhen  he  speaks  of  the 
heavens,  "this  brave  o'erhanging  firmament,  this 
majestical  roof  fretted  with  golden  fire,"  we  feel 
their  presence  bending  over  us;  when  he  talks  of  the 
winds,  we  hear  them  howling  around  us ;  and  when  he 
pictures  a  flower,  we  smell  its  fragrance  and  behold 
its  beauty. 

His  knowledge  of  man  was  equal  to  his  knowledge 
of  nature.  He  showed  the  workings  of  the  mind  and 
the  emotions  of  the  heart.  With  unerring  skill  he 
analyzed  man,  and  with  matchless  ability  he  pictured 
Dature.  So  boundless  were  his  resources,  and  so  in- 
tense was  his  instinct,  that  he  employed  hitherto  un- 
known richness  of  language  with  which  to  clothe  his 
thoughts.  All  this  is  tangible  proof  that  no  error  is 
committed  in  ascribing  genius  to  Shakespeare. 

Thirty-seven  plays,  five  poems,  and  one  hundred 
and  fifty-four  sonnets  are  generally  assigned  to 
Shakespeare  as  the  sum  and  substance  of  his  work. 
His  fame  would  have  suffered  very  little  had  he  writ- 
ten nothing  but  the  plays,  as  his  poems  are  far  in- 
ferior to  his  dramas,  and  as  his  powers  are  best  seen 

[201] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

in  his  dramatic  writings,  they  alone  should  be  con- 
sidered when  analyzing  his  genius. 

After  all  has  been  said  in  reference  to  what  con- 
stitutes the  genius  of  Shakespeare,  it  seems  that  it 
is  best  reflected  in  the  fact  that  his  great  productions 
appear  to  have  sprung  spontaneously  from  his  brain, 
and  that  he  was  not  conscious  of  using  any  particular 
means,  such  as  rules  or  set  plans,  in  bringing  them 
into  being.  He  worked  in  conjunction  with  the 
principles  of  Nature,  but  it  is  not  likely  that  he  con- 
sciously did  so.  He  wrote  with  the  object  of  pro- 
ducing plays  suitable  for  presentation  on  the  stage, 
and  in  doing  so,  reproduced  the  impressions  that 
Nature,  in  its  twofold  character  of  material  and 
human,  had  made  upon  him.  It  is  not  likely  even  that 
he  was  aware  of  the  fact  that  he  was  bringing  forth 
creations  that  would  exert  an  influence  upon  English 
literature  greater  than  the  works  of  all  his  contem- 
poraries, not  to  speak  of  the  productions  of  authors 
before  and  since  his  time.  We  have  nothing  to  show 
that  he  valued  his  literary  work  except  as  a  means 
of  pecuniary  profit;  and  that  he  was  unaware  of 
the  value  of  the  plays  as  literature,  is  attested  by 
the  fact  that  he  took  no  pains  to  presence  them  for 
coming  generations.  He  could  have  little  dreamed 
that  the  plays  that  possessed  only  pecuniary  value 
to  him,  would  be  looked  upon  by  succeeding  genera- 
tions as  priceless  treasures,  enriching  the  English 
language  and  acting  as  sources  of  inspiration  to  all 
subsequent  writers.  This  absence  of  appreciation  of 
his  work  by  Shakespeare  is  one  of  the  surest  indica- 

[202] 


THE    GENIUS    OF    SHAKESPEARE 

tions  of  his  genius,  as  it  is  evidence  to  show  that  he 
must  have  produced  his  effects  with  that  ease  which 
is  indicative  of  genius  in  all  fields  of  endeavor.  Had 
he  set  forth  to  produce  a  wonderfvil  work,  had  he  been 
governed  by  rules  of  time,  place  and  action,  had  he 
measured  and  weighed  every  line,  he  might  have  been 
a  skilled  playwright,  but  he  never  could  have  been 
a  genius.  This  is  not  to  say  that  genius  does  not 
exercise  care,  that  genius  does  not  labor^  because 
thoughtful  application  is  one  of  the  attributes  of 
genius,  but  it  is  meant  to  declare  that  genius  such  as 
is  shown  in  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  could  only  come 
from  a  mind  that  was  absolutely  unfettered.  It  is 
useless  to  search  for  the  causes  of  his  genius;  it  is 
impossible  to  show  by  designation  wherein  he  was 
a  genius.  As  the  causes  are  lost  in  the  graveyard 
of  the  past,  and  the  effects,  in  the  shape  of  his  plays, 
alone  survive,  so  also  are  the  reasons  that  might  be 
assigned  as  proof  of  his  genius  buried  within  the 
plays  themselves.  We  know  that  the  reasons  are 
there,  because  we  feel  their  presence;  but  being,  as 
they  are,  so  much  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  plays  them- 
selves, it  is  impossible  to  detach  them  and  bring  them 
to  the  light  of  day  and,  in  their  individual  forms, 
offer  them  as  evidence  of  his  genius.  It  does  not 
suffice  to  show  that  he  constructed  his  plots  with  great 
skill,  that  he  drew  his  characters  true  to  life,  that  his 
philosophy  is  beyond  dispute,  that  his  indicated  knowl- 
edge of  law  is  marvelous,  that  the  expressive  power 
of  his  words  is  beyond  compare,  and  the  beauty  of 
his  diction  nowhere  surpassed.    These  things  are  not 

[203] 


SIDELIGHTS   ON  SHAKESPEARE 

individual  indications  of  his  genius  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  permit  us  to  say,  herein  lies  his  transcendent 
power.  Collectively,  they  may  be  called  the  means  he 
employed  for  demonstrating  his  genius ;  but  in  them- 
selves, they  do  not  constitute  it. 

Of  these  things  we  may  be  assured:  Shakespeare 
knew  not  how  well  he  labored;  Nature  alone  was  his 
guide ;  he  can  be  comprehended  best  by  those  who 
understand  Nature,  and  his  works  are  a  priceless 
blessing  to  toilers  in  every  field  of  effort. 

A  mystery  surrounds  the  life  of  Shakespeare,  and 
it  is  well  that  it  should  not  be  dispelled.  An  ex- 
planation of  his  works  is  impossible,  because  no  ex- 
planation will  satisfy  the  wants  of  all.  Each  must  go 
to  the  fountain  direct,  and  as  he  drinks  of  its  won- 
drous waters  he  will  find  therein  the  properties  that 
Avill  satisfy  his  thirst.  It  is  useless  to  analyze  these 
properties;  it  is  a  waste  of  time  to  separate  their  in- 
gredients. Let  us  preserve  undefiled  the  spring  whence 
flow  these  magic  waters,  and  thank  the  God  of  Shake- 
speare and  of  us  all  for  bestowing  the  sweet  singer, 
the  Bard  of  Avon,  upon  humanity. 


[204] 


X 

,  5 


THE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


STACK  COLLECTION 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


rfwrnSr 


DEG  g-1969 


)m-8,'65(F6447s4)9482 


2 


t^'^ 


1QQC  1  n 


3   1205  00687   2954 


lllllinSiim^M^^^'^^*'-  "-'BRARY  FACILITY 


